Effect of a registration of recognition and recognition protocol and transfer of ownership pursuant to a judgment against the deceased.

Since the registration of ownership transfer based on the recognition protocol and judgment against a deceased person is based on the recognition protocol and judgment which are void automatically, the registration is also null and void.

Article 211 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 3 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

International Tourism Organization

Seoul Central District Court (69Da9938) in the first instance trial

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff's representative shall bury 43 square meters in depth of 10 persons in depth on the line, each of which is linked 10 points, among the real estate listed in the attached Table 2 Schedule 2 Schedule 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 10 percent in depth, among the real estate listed in the attached Table 2 Schedule 2 Schedule 1, and deliver the real estate listed in the attached Table 1, 371, 920 and the amount equivalent to 5 percent per annum from December 16, 1969 to full payment.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The defendant representative shall revoke the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

The real estate listed in [Attachment 1,2(1), (2), and (3) is classified into three parcels as currently indicated in the list due to changes, etc. due to division and reclamation. However, as to the real estate recorded in the list 1 in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Sungdong District Court No. 765 on January 18, 1939, and as to the real estate recorded in the list 2 in the list 1510 on January 26, 1921, the ownership transfer registration of Nonparty 1 was transited by the registration office No. 1510 on September 1, 1961, and the above list No. 2365 on September 1, 1961, the Plaintiff received the ownership transfer registration of Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 2 via the registration office No. 2366 on July 26, 1961, and the Plaintiff received the ownership transfer registration of Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 3 under the title No. 1, 2365 on July 26, 1964

Therefore, without dispute over the establishment of Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, 1-3 of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5-1, 2-2 of the evidence No. 6, 2-2 of the evidence Nos. 7, and 11-3 and 5 of the evidence Nos. 11, which were acquired by the defendant after the non-party Nos. 2 died, the non-party Nos. 61 and 4 of the Seoul District Court's judgment that did not recognize the ownership transfer registration as to the non-party No. 2 of the above real estate No. 9 of the defendant's own judgment as to the non-party No. 2 of the registration No. 9 of the non-party No. 2 of the non-party No. 1, the non-party No. 2 of the non-party No. 2 of the Seoul District Court's judgment as to the non-party No. 61 and No. 41 of the non-party No. 6 of the judgment as to the non-party No. 2's. 16 of the court's.

On July 14, 1962, the defendant's entry in the second list of the real estate was completed since the Minister of Construction and Transportation succeeded to the land expropriation on July 14, 1962 by the defendant, and according to the land expropriation procedure, the approval of the project by the Administrator of the National Land Construction Agency on May 10, 1962, the public notice of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Mayor on May 12, 1962, the request for adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on May 19, 1962, the public notice of the application for adjudication by the Administrator of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on May 22, 1962, the ruling of the Central Land Committee on July 4, 1962, and the deposit of the expropriation compensation on July 14, 1962, the non-party 1 had already been registered as the owner of the land at the time of the above land expropriation procedure, and the plaintiff cannot be found to have been aware of the ownership of the land owner or the person related to the public works.

According to Article 67 of the Land Expropriation Act, the entrepreneur shall acquire the ownership on the date when he expropriates the land or things, and the other rights on the land or things shall be extinguished, and according to Article 115 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, registration due to the expropriation of the land of paragraph (1) may be applied only by the person entitled to registration.

According to the above paragraph (2) and paragraph (3) of this Article, if the public office is a public project operator, it is necessary to request the registry office without delay the registration of the above paragraph (2). If the defendant acquired ownership in the land expropriation at the time of his claim, and if the defendant succeeded to the right, it is common to register the land expropriation directly by the public project operator and to register the ownership transfer transfer to the defendant after the year. The land expropriation procedure of the public project operator No. 1-2 as to the above list No. 2 as well as the above list No. 1-2, even if the land expropriation procedure of the public project operator No. 1-2 is shown on July 14, 1962, the land expropriation procedure of the public project operator No. 1-2 as well as the public project operator No. 3 as the public project operator No.

Therefore, according to the result of on-site inspection by the court below, according to the appraisal by the non-party 8, the real estate in this case is within the border of the defendant's management, and is occupied and used on roads and other roads. In particular, from among the real estate listed in the annexed Table No. 2 (1) of the annexed Table No. 2, the part of the ship connected to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5, and 1 is part of the Folk Folk Track (10 Kack), which can be recognized that the above real estate has been occupied and used as part of the Folk Track (10 Kack), and the defendant eventually, unless there is no proof that there is a political power source as to such possession, the defendant delivers the above real estate to the plaintiff unless it is proved that there is a real estate owner of the attached Table No. 1 (1) of the attached Table No. 1 of this Decree, the attached Table No. 1 of this Decree clearly purchased the name of the defendant's possession on the attached list No. 15196.3 through 196.8.1.1.

The defendant, when removing a building and the number of water, destroyed the tourist facilities because the value of a stacker and flave is extremely damaged, so it is an abuse of rights. However, it is clear that the plaintiff filed a claim in the gushesheet area, and voluntarily withdrawn the above part of the claim according to the "application for correction of claim" stated in the 6th pleading of March 17, 700 by the court below (202). Thus, the above theory of abuse

Furthermore, with respect to the amount equivalent to the rent as unjust enrichment, the reason why the member should explain is the same as the corresponding part of the original judgment, and therefore, it is accepted in accordance with Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to deliver the real estate to the plaintiff as shown in the exhibition, and pay the amount of 9,329,776 won and 5% interest per annum from December 16, 1969 to the full payment (the plaintiff's claim). Since the above part of claim for payment exceeding the above amount is actual, it shall be dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment below is just, and the defendant's appeal is not reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 384, 89, and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment List]

Judges Yekpo-syun (Presiding Judge)