The relationship with a third party who acquired a resale under the Civil Code of Joseon in case where the latter two parties succeed to the real estate through a female house and did not register it.

If a woman, who succeeded to a miscarriage under the Ordinance of the Joseon Dynasty, has made a registration by selling it to another person and selling it to a third party without making a registration of acquisition by inheritance of real estate which is a miscarriage through a woman, the ex post facto cultivator who succeeded to the miscarriage may not set up against the third party who purchased it.

Article 13 of the Decree on Maritime Affairs and Civil Code, Article 867 of the Civil Code

Plaintiff (Attorney Song-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorney Lee Byung-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 67Na472 delivered on April 4, 1968: 67Na472

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s agent

After the death of the non-party 1, his wife, the non-party 2 succeeded to the name of the plaintiff's representative that the defendant 3 succeeded to the family again as the adopted child after the death of the non-party 1 in 1959, even though the defendant 3 testified after the deceased non-party 1's adopted child after the death of the non-party 1 who was the deceased non-party 1 and recognized the inheritance of the property through the non-party 2, according to the facts established by the original judgment, since the defendant 3 was selected after July 8, 1959 as the adopted child after the death of the non-party 1, the former Joseon Civil Code shall apply to the inheritance. The non-party 3, who was the two after the death of the deceased non-party 1, succeeded to it from the deceased non-party 2, the wife of the non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, who was the deceased non-party 1's wife and purchased it after the death of the non-party 3, who did not register the inheritance ownership by inheritance.

The issue is groundless.

As to ground of appeal No. 2

Based on the evidence in which the original judgment was based, it is not acceptable to accept the fact-finding of the original judgment, and each evidentiary material inconsistent with the above fact-finding is interpreted as the original judgment which rejected all the above facts-findings, and the argument is ultimately nothing more than anything else to criticize the matters of the original judgment regarding the determination of the evidence and the fact-finding.

The issue is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with Articles 400, 395, and 384 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)