Whether provisional registration for preserving a claim for transfer of ownership, security contract for monetary obligations, or accord and satisfaction reservation exists;

It cannot be readily concluded that there was a provisional registration for preserving the right of claim for transfer of ownership, and thus there was a security contract or a promise for payment in kind with respect to a pecuniary obligation, and it cannot be concluded that there was a change in the legal effect that has already been made by the new Civil Act, which was enforced on October 10, 1954, in accordance with the provisions of the new Civil Act, effective on January 1, 1960, and thus, it cannot be said that the court below erred by failing to determine the application of this Article and Article 608 of this Act.

Article 466 of the Civil Act, Article 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Freeboard of light

Hubs

bb. (Attorney Pre-paid, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 62Na237 delivered on January 23, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

Of the costs of appeal, the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant, and the part arising between the plaintiff and the defendant shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant and the defendant's representative's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

However, it is not possible to find that the determination of the evidence and the fact-finding belong to the exclusive authority of the court below, and it cannot be found that the process and contents of the fact-finding of the court below are illegal even after examining the process and contents of the fact-finding of the court below, and it is merely a charge of the fact-finding of the court below,

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, at the time of sighting before and after the original judgment, it cannot be deemed that there was a coercion in the sale and purchase of this case since each testimony of the theory of lawsuit is obvious that it did not take the place, and since there was a coercion in order to waive the cultivation right itself, it cannot be said that there was no illegality like the theory of lawsuit in the original judgment.

The third ground of appeal is examined.

However, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer, and thus there was a security contract or a promise for payment in kind with respect to a monetary obligation. Moreover, it cannot be said that there was a promise for payment in kind with respect to the legal act in this case which had been made on October 10, 1954, and it cannot be said that there was a change in the legal effect that has already been made under the Civil Act, which was enforced on January 1, 1960, and therefore, it cannot be said that the court below did not determine the application of Article 607 and Article 608

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in accordance with Articles 400, 395, 384(1), 89, and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the highest leapbal leapbal leaps