A. The case holding that it cannot be said that the court failed to perform its duty of explanation on the ground that the plaintiff did not have an opportunity to modify the purport of the claim, even though the plaintiff's assertion is all acknowledged, if the purport of the claim is not consistent

B. Whether a person who held a title in a title trust to the former owner has the right to directly file a claim for the transfer registration against the current title holder of the invalidation registration without subrogateding the trustee (negative)

A. The case holding that if the purport of the claim is not consistent with that of the plaintiff's assertion, it cannot be said that the court failed to perform its duty of explanation on the ground that it did not give the plaintiff an opportunity to modify the purport of the claim.

B. A person who is merely a person who held a title in a title trust to the former owner, and who does not acquire the title of ownership on the registry does not have the right to request the registration of transfer directly against the title holder on the current invalidation registration without subrogated to the title trustee.

A. Article 126(4) of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 186(4) of the Civil Act / [title trust] and Article 404 of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court en banc Decision 77Da1079 Decided September 25, 1979 (Gong1979, 12289) (Gong1207 Decided July 25, 1989)

Hah-Jin Law Firm Hah-Jak, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Defendant 1 and four defendants et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Supreme Court Decision 90Da6682 Delivered on December 11, 1990

Msan District Court Decision 90Na5171 delivered on September 3, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the court below's decision, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim that the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the plaintiff is not allowed even if the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration is invalid, since the farmland in this case is an overland prescribed in Article 6 (1) 7 of the Farmland Reform Act and is excluded from the government sale and distribution under the above Act. Thus, since the farmland distribution to the non-party 1 is null and void, the ownership transfer registration in the name of the person is also returned to the effect that the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration is invalid, and the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the plaintiff directly against the plaintiff is not allowed. In light of the records, the above decision of the court below is justified, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles like the theory, nor did the court below failed to perform its duty

In particular, the plaintiff asserts that allowing the registration of cancellation against the defendants in order to find a legitimate name, rather than requiring the plaintiff to go through complicated litigation procedures such as filing a request for registration of transfer against the inheritors of non-party 2, who are the former owners. However, as long as the registration in the name of the defendants is null and void, the plaintiff is merely the title truster to the non-party 2, who is the former owners, and there is no record of acquiring the title of ownership on the register, so the plaintiff does not have the right to directly file for registration of transfer against himself against the title holder of the invalid registration without subrogated to the title trustee. Therefore, this part of the argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)