Where registration made by a judgment against the deceased conforms to the substantive rights relationship, the validity of such registration.

Even if a registration is made by a judgment against a deceased person, if it conforms to the relation of substantive rights, such registration shall be returned to an effective registration.

Article 214 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 1

Seoul Central District Court (69A15, 163) in the first instance trial

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

With respect to the plaintiff, the defendant 2 foundation shall accept the registration of the Seoul District Court on May 24, 1963 on the registration of the transfer of ownership on the attached list No. 22,684 on the registration of the Seoul District Court on November 10, 1962 on the registration of the transfer of ownership on the ground of contribution made by the Seoul District Court on November 10, 1962 on the attached list, and the defendant 1 shall implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the registration of the transfer of ownership on the above real estate on September 9, 1961 on the receipt of the registration of the above court on September 29, 1961 on the registration of

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants in the first and second instances.

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

On November 1, 1969, the fact that Nonparty 1 was appointed as an administrator of the plaintiff by the Seoul Family Court 69D4062 on the appointment of an absentee administrator on November 1, 1969 is evident in the records that the plaintiff was appointed as an administrator of the plaintiff. The legal representative of the defendants is not a person living in the Republic of Korea who was living in North Korea and was living in North Korea from the original point of view. Thus, the judgment on appointment of an absentee administrator based on the premise that the plaintiff was an absentee is null and void as a matter of course. Thus, the judgment on appointment of the above absentee administrator based on the premise that the plaintiff was an absentee is a matter of course. Thus, the plaintiff's claim filed by the non-party 1 as an administrator of the plaintiff's status is an unlawful lawsuit filed by the non-party 1 and thus dismissed. However, even if the judgment on appointment of the absentee administrator was erroneous, it cannot be viewed as a matter of course, and therefore, its validity cannot be denied unless it was revoked by legitimate procedure.

2. Judgment on the merits

Since real estate listed in the separate list (hereinafter the above real estate is not registered under the name of the non-party 2 and the non-party 1's co-ownership of the above real estate (the non-party 1/2's shares), the above defendant filed a lawsuit against the above non-party 2 for the execution of the transfer registration procedure on May 11, 1961, which is the deceased's death (the non-party 1's death on February 15, 1961), and the deceased's non-party 2's shares were transferred to the above defendant's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's title.

Thus, the above title trust agreement between the deceased non-party 2 and the defendant 1 on the 1/2 shares of the real estate in this case is already resolved in around October 1960, which is the birth of the deceased, and it is apparent that the real estate in this city was actually reverted to the sole ownership of the defendant 1. Thus, the registration of transfer of shares in the above defendant's name shall eventually be returned to a valid registration consistent with the substantive rights.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the court below's decision on the premise that the above transfer registration of shares in the name of defendant 1 is invalid is without merit. Thus, the court below's decision on the same conclusion is just and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of the losing party.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Cho Young-dong (Presiding Judge)