If the genuine owner requests the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the restoration of the title of registration (affirmative)

Where the real owner and the owner on his/her register are not the same as those on his/her own, due to cancellation by a final judgment ordering the cancellation of registration of ownership transfer in the real owner, the real owner may request the apparent holder holding his/her name only due to the registration due to the effect of his/her own, to implement the procedure for registration of ownership transfer to recover the real name.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Maximum Thai et al. and 13 others

Korea

Busan District Court (85 Gohap3934)

1. Of the original judgment, the part against the Defendant ordering the Plaintiff to perform the procedure for ownership transfer registration in excess of 85/208 with respect to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 3 attached hereto, and the part against the Defendant against the Plaintiff’s death, respectively, shall be revoked, and all of the Plaintiff’s maximum attitude and the claim for delivery (third preliminary claim) corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's remaining appeals against the plaintiff's best attitude and all appeals against the plaintiffs' excluding the plaintiff's best attitude, excluding the plaintiff's attitude, grammatic attitude, and Medical virtue and appeals against the plaintiff's Medical virtue are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff’s literacy and the Defendant is borne by the same Plaintiff as both the first and second instances. The part arising between the Plaintiff’s best attitude and the Defendant is divided into four parts: the Defendant’s, the remainder one, and the same Plaintiff’s burden. The costs arising from the appeal against the Plaintiff’s mistake are borne by the Defendant’s appeal against the remaining Plaintiffs except the same Plaintiff and the above Plaintiffs.

The primary claim: The defendant will implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the final judgment of the Seoul High Court on August 27, 1982, No. 81Na3506 on each of the relevant real estates listed in the separate sheet No. 1 through No. 16 in response to each of the plaintiffs listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiffs in the separate sheet.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The first preliminary claim: The defendant will implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of an exchange agreement on July 18, 1945 with respect to each of the relevant real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 16, indicated by each of the plaintiffs in the separate sheet No. 1 to 16.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

(1) The defendant: (1) cancelled the ownership transfer registration No. 2. 1. 2. 1. 4. 8. 1. 4. 2. 1. 4. 1. 4. 1. 8. 4. 1. 2. 1. 4. 1. 4. 1. 1. 8. 4. 1. 4. 1. 4. 1. 1. 1. 2. 4. 1. 4. 1. 4. 1. 4. 1. 1. 4. 1. 1. 98. 1. 4. 4. 1. 4. 1. 1. 1. 1. 48. 4. 1. 1, 1960

The third preliminary claim: the defendant shall execute the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the restoration of the real name of the registration with respect to each of the relevant real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 through No. 16, indicated by the plaintiffs in the separate sheet No. 1.

The part against the plaintiff regarding the third preliminary claim in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall execute the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer, such as the entries in the third preliminary claim, to the plaintiff.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the defendants in the first and second trials.

Of the original judgment, the part against the defendant's remaining plaintiffs except for the plaintiff's tolerance shall be revoked, and all the same plaintiffs' claims (the third preliminary claims) corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the same plaintiffs in both the first and second instances (Therefore, the subject of the trial on the political party shall be limited to the third preliminary claim of the plaintiffs).

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1 내지 16, 갑 제6호증, 갑 제3호증의 1 내지 5, 갑 제5호증의 7, 8, 33, 34, 갑 제7호증, 갑 제4호증의 11, 13, 갑 제5호증의 18, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, 36, 46, 47, 52, 53, 위 갑 제5호증의 27, 36의 기재내용에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제4호증의 5, 6, 7의 각 기재와 원심증인 김복수의 증언에 변론의 전 취지를 종합하면 별지목록 기재의 이 사건 부동산은 원래 조선총독부 명의로 소유권이전등기가 경료된 일정 당시의 조선총독부 소관 국유재산이었는데, 원고 문기태의 아버지인 소외 망 문중오(문중오, 일정시의 창씨명은 문전무일)는 1945.1. 초 조선총독부 교통국 부산건설사무소장에게 당시 조선총독부에서 비행기 공습에 대비한 기관차 대피소 용지로 예정하여 매수하였다가 설계변경으로 인하여 사실상 방치하고 있는 이 사건 부동산을 포함한 그 일대의 분할전 토지 11필 도합 1031평[이하 교환도지(교환도지)라 한다]과 조선총독부에서 기관차 대피소 용지로 새로이 매수할 예정으로 있던 위 망인 소유의 부산 부산진구 당감동 512의1 답 203평을 포함한 그 일대의 분할전 토지 9필 도합 2193평[이하 교환수지(교환도지)라 한다]의 교환을 요청하여 위 건설사무소장과의 사이에 그 교환에 관한 가계약을 체결함에 있어서 교환도지 가격은 당시의 화폐로 돈 8105원 50전, 교환수지 가격은 7952원 10전으로 정하되, 위 교환수지지 중 위 망인 소유가 아닌 타인 소유토지 8필지는 위 망인이 이를 취득하여 다시 조선총독부에 이전하는 절차를 취하여야 할 것이나 편의상 위 망인이 건설사무소에 교환수지대금과 교환차금을 예치하면, 위 건설사무소장이 그 예치금의 일부로 위 타인소유 토지를 매수, 취득하기로 한다는 내용의 약정을 한 사실, 그리하여 위 문중오는 1945.1.10. 교환수지 대금 7952원 10전을 위 건설사무소에 예치하였고, 한편 위 건설사무소장은 조선총독부 교통국장에게 위 가교환계약의 승인을 요청하여 1945.7.17. 조선총독부 교통국 교공 666호의 2로 그 승인을 받은 다음 같은 달 18. 위 문중오로부터 위 교환차금 153원 40전(8105원 50전-7952원 10전)을 지급받고 위 가계약과 같은 내용의 교환계약을 체결하여 위 문중오에게 교환도지에 대한 소유권이전등기 소요서류를 교부해 줌으로써 위 문중오가 1945.8.29. 위 교환도지에 관하여 그 명의로 소유권이전등기를 경료하였고, 그 이후 위 교환도지중 대다수 토지는 작은 필지로 분할되고 또 매매 등으로 소유권이 이전되어 별지목록 기재의 이 사건 토지도 상당부분은 여러 차례에 걸쳐 새로운 취득자 앞으로 그 소유권이전등기가 경료되어 나아간 사실, 그러나 피고는 1970.9.9. 위 교환도지에 대하여 아무런 처분 권한도 없는 위 건설사무소장이 국유지인 위 교환도지를 교환의 목적물로 하여 체결한 위 교환계약이 무효라는 이유를 내세워 위 교환도지에 관하여 위 교환계약을 원인으로 하여 경료된 위 문중오 명의의 소유권이전등기와 이에 터잡아 경료되어 나아간 각 소유권이전등기의 등기명의인을 상대로 그 말소등기청구의 소( 부산지방법원 70가3618호 )를 제기하였고, 나아가 1970.10.7.에는 위 각 토지에 대한 처분금지가처분의 집행까지 마쳐 위 소송을 수행하였는데, 위 말소등기청구사건은 8년가량의 쟁송 끝에 결국은 모두 피고의 승소로 확정, 종결된 사실, 그런데 위 말소등기절차의 이행을 명한 피고 승소의 확정판결이 있은 후 원고 김인찬, 문정길을 제외한 그 나머지 원고들과 소외 김갑술, 조말복 등 이 사건 부동산에 관한 당시의 등기부상 소유명의자들은 앞서 본 바와 같이 8.15 해방전 조선총독부 교통국 부산건설사무소장에게 이 사건 부동산을 포함한 위 교환도지에 대한 처분권한이 있었다는 새로운 증거자료를 탐지하여 위 문중오(문전무일) 명의의 소유권이전등기에 아무런 하자도 없었음을 밝혀내고 1978.10.23. 그들이 이 사건 부동산에 관하 진정한 소유권자라는 이유로 피고를 상대로 이 사건 부동산에 관한 소유권확인청구의 소( 서울민사지방법원 78가합4750호 )를 제기하여 상급심을 오르내리던 끝에 1982.8.27. 서울고등법원에서 81나3506호의 승소판결 을 선고받기에 이르렀고, 그 판결은 1983.4.13. 대법원에 의하여 피고의 상고허가신청이 기각됨으로써 그대로 확정된 사실(다만, 위 소유권확인청구소송 당시 별지 제3목록 기재 부동산 중 208분의 85 지분은 원고 최정태 명의로, 그 나머지 208분의123지분은 소외 이 재우 명의로 소유권이전등기가 경료되어 있었음에도 불구하고 그 부동산 전부가 원고 최정태의 단독 소유로 확정되었으나 이는 피고가 위 소송에서 위와 같은 부동산등기에 관한 사실관계를 제대로 살펴보지 아니한채 위 부동산이 원고 최정태의 단독 명의로 소유권이전등기가 되어 있다는 동 원고 주장

On the other hand, after the above claim for ownership verification was filed, the owner of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 was not entitled to the registration of ownership transfer from each of the plaintiffs stated in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15, and on the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 6, the ownership transfer registration was not completed under the name of the above plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 3, 4, 4, 9, 2, 1984, and the above list No. 1, 3, 197, 3, 196, 4, and 5, as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 6's ownership transfer registration was completed again on June 16, 1984.

According to the above facts, even if the title holder on the register of this case on the attached list is the defendant, since the above judgment of confirmation of ownership became final and conclusive, the actual ownership on the attached list Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 is still applicable to each of the plaintiffs listed in the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15. The real estate listed in the attached Form Nos. 5,6,10 is presumed to be the owner of the real estate in the attached list No. 5 list, who received the above judgment of confirmation of ownership transfer from the person who received the above decision of confirmation of ownership transfer transfer (the plaintiff Kim-ho, 26/10 of the real estate in the above list No. 5 list) and the actual owner (or person presumed to be the owner in the above list) is deleted in the future by the cancellation order of ownership transfer registration, and the real owner's right holder's.

However, with respect to the whole real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3, and the plaintiff Kim Jong-ho is seeking to implement the above procedure for registration of ownership transfer as to the whole real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 5, and even if he/she has been awarded a favorable judgment as to the ownership transfer as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 8 and No. 16, he/she sought to implement the above procedure for registration of ownership transfer as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 5, but his/her best attitude has been awarded a favorable judgment as to the whole real estate listed in the above third list, he/she cannot seek registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of real name in excess of 85/208 among the real estate at the time the above cancellation registration is made, since the plaintiff Kim Jong-ho is not entitled to obtain registration of ownership transfer transfer for the real real estate in excess of 30/30 as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 5, and it is presumed that he/she was the owner of the above real property in substance in the future Kim Jong-ok's name.

In regard to this, the defendant alleged that recognizing the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of real name in this case is not permissible because it goes against the res judicata effect of the final judgment on the claim for registration of cancellation, but the res judicata effect of the final judgment does not affect only the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of legal relations alleged as a subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of legal relations. Thus, even though the judgment which admitted the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration for the reason that there is no ownership, even though the judgment which admitted the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration became final and conclusive on the ground that there is no ownership, the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment only affects the existence of the claim for cancellation registration as a subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of the right of ownership itself. As seen earlier, as in this case, it appears that the plaintiffs have sought the above registration of ownership transfer based on the validity

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on each real estate listed in the separate sheet (Provided, That the real estate listed in the third list shall be 85/208 and 26/30 shares in the real estate listed in the fifth list) indicated on the separate sheet for each of the plaintiffs, except for the plaintiff's literature and tradition, the third preliminary claim against the plaintiff is justified, and the third preliminary claim against the plaintiff is justified, and the third preliminary claim against the plaintiff is dismissed for the reason that the third preliminary claim against the plaintiff, the third preliminary claim against the plaintiff, the third preliminary claim against the plaintiff, and the third preliminary claim against the defendant shall be dismissed for the reason that it is improper to accept the part of the defendant's appeal against the defendant and to order the plaintiff to transfer ownership of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 list, and the third preliminary claim against the plaintiff, the third preliminary claim against the plaintiff, the third preliminary claim against the plaintiff and the third preliminary claim against the plaintiff shall be dismissed by applying Article 95/208 shares in the original judgment, and all of the decision against the plaintiff's remaining appeal against the plaintiff's et 9.

Judges Lee Jin (Presiding Judge)