Examples rejecting the Request for Designation of Date

Unless special circumstances exist, the procedural acts such as the withdrawal of an appeal cannot be asserted as invalid or void on the grounds of substantive defects of the intention, and the withdrawal of an appeal cannot be deemed null and void on the grounds that the written withdrawal of an appeal is submitted by the appellant or by a person other than his/her representative.

Article 239 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 363 of the Civil Procedure Act

On November 21, 1963, Supreme Court Decision 63Da441 Decided 21, 1963 (Supreme Court Decision 11 ② ② 253, Decision 363(2)973, Sept. 15, 1964, Decision 64Da92 (Supreme Court Decision 8120, Supreme Court Decision 12 ② 98, Decision 239(5) of Supreme Court Decision 239(5) of the Civil Procedure Act, Decision 67Da204 decided Oct. 31, 1967 (Supreme Court Decision 2131, Supreme Court Decision 15 ② 244, Decision 363(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, Decision 70Hu7079, Oct. 30, 197, Decision 901; Decision 201Da972979, Feb. 19, 201).

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 15 others

Seoul Civil History District Court (79 Gohap6104)

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant 2 and the part concerning the Republic of Korea against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 shall be dismissed, and the lawsuit against the defendant Republic of Korea

2. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants other than Defendant 2, Korea, and Defendants 4 and 5 and the incidental appeal against Defendant 2 are all dismissed.

3. Of the instant cases, the part pertaining to Defendant 4 and 5 was terminated by the withdrawal of the appeal on January 7, 1981.

4. The costs of appeal arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 and the costs of appeal against the remaining Defendants except Defendant 2, 4, and 5 of the Plaintiff, and the costs of appeal after the Plaintiff’s request for fixed date designation against Defendant 4, and 5 are all borne by the Plaintiff.

1. For Defendant Republic of Korea:

① Defendant 1: (a) the registration of transfer of ownership that has been made on December 30, 1978 with respect to real property under [Attachment List 1 through 7]; and (b) the registration of transfer of ownership that has been made on December 30, 1978,

② Defendant 6: (a) the transfer of ownership that has been made on December 30, 1978 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached Schedules 1 and 2; (b) the transfer of ownership that has been made on December 30, 1978

③ Defendant 7: (a) the registration of transfer of ownership that was made on March 9, 1979 with respect to any portion of one-third of the real estates listed in the attached Schedules 1 and 2, and that was made on March 9, 1979;

④ Defendant 8: (a) the registration of transfer of ownership made under No. 8395 for two-thirds of the above immovables; (b)

⑤ Defendant 9 and 10: (a) the transfer of ownership that has been made on December 30, 1978 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached Table 3, pursuant to Article 105824 of the Support; (b)

④ Defendant 4: (a) the transfer of ownership, which was completed on December 30, 1978 under No. 105823, which was received on December 30, 1978; (b) the transfer of ownership, which

7. The registration of provisional disposition made on January 9, 1979 by Defendant 5 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list 4, for which the above support was received on January 9, 1979;

8. The defendant 11 and 12 are the registration of each transfer of ownership, which was made on December 30, 1978 with respect to the real property specified in the attached Tables 5 and 7, with No. 105701 on the receipt of the above assistance;

9) The registration of each transfer of ownership made on December 30, 1978 by Defendant 13 with respect to the real estate listed in [Attachment 6, 9, and 10] attached Table 6, 9, and 10, pursuant to Article 105699;

(10) With respect to the registration of ownership transfer made under No. 1238 of January 16, 1979 with respect to each share of 227.65/816 shares among the real estate listed in the attached Table 6, 9, and 10, and with respect to the real estate listed in the attached Table 9, which was received on November 1, 1979, the registration of ownership transfer made under No. 48050 on November 1, 1979;

(11) The defendant 15 shall transfer the ownership registered under No. 1239 of Jan. 16, 1979 with respect to the share of the 365.76/816 shares of the real estate listed in the attached list 6, 9, and 10, and with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list 6, received on Nov. 1, 1979;

(12) On November 1, 1979, Defendant 16 implements the procedures for registration of transfer of ownership and for cancellation of registration made under No. 48052 on November 1, 1979 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached Table 6, 9, and 10, which was granted under No. 1240 with respect to the above support, with respect to the transfer of ownership and the real estate stated in the attached Table 10, for which the above support has been granted

2. Defendant 2 implements each procedure for the transfer of ownership due to the termination of the trust on the date of service of a duplicate copy of the attached Table 1 to 4 real estate in the attached Table 2 to Defendant Republic of Korea;

3. Defendant 2 shall implement each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on December 5, 1975 with respect to the Plaintiff’s share of 5/100 of the real estate listed in the attached list 1 through 10.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the remaining Defendants other than Defendant 2 shall not be revoked, as stated in the purport of the claim against the same Defendants.

Defendant 2. It is so ordered as per Disposition.

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff against the defendant 2 shall be revoked.

Defendant 2 shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on December 5, 1975 with respect to shares of 27.5/100 among the real estate listed in the attached sheet 1 to 10 to the Plaintiff.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant 2.

The plaintiff is seeking the designation of the date against the defendant 4 and 5.

1. Determination as to the plaintiff's application for designating the date

The plaintiff lost against the defendant 4 and 5 in the first instance court of the lawsuit of this case, and filed an appeal to the party member, and the plaintiff's withdrawal of appeal to this part as of January 7, 1981 is obvious in the records. The plaintiff asserts that the withdrawal of appeal was made by Nonparty 1's coercion on May 6, 1980, and it was not submitted by the party with the right to submit or the right to submit the appeal. Thus, the plaintiff claims the designation of the date as to that part, since the withdrawal of appeal is not effective.

On the other hand, the court below's testimony of non-party 2 is difficult to acknowledge the fact that the above written withdrawal of appeal was made by duress, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, and the plaintiff cannot assert the invalidity or revocation of the act on the ground of substantive defect of the doctor's intention, and the withdrawal of appeal cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that the written withdrawal of appeal was submitted by the appellant or by the person other than his representative. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit. Thus, the above case against the above defendants was terminated by the withdrawal of appeal on January 7, 1981 (the plaintiff withdrawn the appeal against the defendant 2, defendant country, and defendant 1 as to the real estate listed in the attached Table 4 in the above written withdrawal of appeal, but this part is merely an appeal against the part of multiple claims joined with the above defendants, and this part is not effective after the withdrawal of appeal, and the plaintiff disputes the validity of the withdrawal after the withdrawal of the appeal is also included in the scope of objection against the plaintiff, which is also included in the scope of objection against the defendants.

2. Grounds for the plaintiff's claim and its judgment

A. Ground for the plaintiff's claim

(1) The real estate recorded in the attached list was originally registered as Nonparty 3, but Nonparty 3 borrowed 270,000 won (at the time) from the Joseon National Bank under the joint and several guarantee of Nonparty 4 in 1922, but it was impossible for Nonparty 4 to repay the principal and interest thereof. On March 8, 1926, Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 3 paid it by proxy by Nonparty 4, the Minister for Non-party 4 and the Minister for Non-party 3, in order to secure the claim for reimbursement by Nonparty 4 on behalf of the Minister for Non-party 4, but at any time, the real estate owned by Nonparty 3 should be returned at the request of Nonparty 3 when the above claim for reimbursement was paid after the registration of ownership transfer. Accordingly, on September 10, 1957, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of Nonparty 4 with respect to all the real estate owned by Nonparty 3, including the real estate recorded in the attached list, and on September 10, 1957, Nonparty 54.

(2) The non-party 3 died on January 20, 1936, and died on July 7, 1945, and the non-party 6 also died, and the non-party 7 was the head of family and the property successor. The non-party 6, who was the non-party 6, filed a lawsuit demanding recognition against the prosecutor on November 2, 1947, and won the lawsuit, and entered the judgment of the non-party 7 on March 9, 1948 upon the decision to permit the correction of the family register on February 27, 1948. Meanwhile, the non-party 8, the wife of the non-party 6, and the non-party 7 and the non-party 9, who was the children of the non-party 6, were all missing on June 25, 195, and both of the non-party 6 and the non-party 27, who died on October 30, 1958.

(3) Therefore, as long as the above claim for reimbursement was fully satisfied, the defendant country should return the real estate recorded in the attached list to the defendant 2, the final heir of the non-party 3, who is the non-party 10, who is the son of the non-party 3, without any authority, to the defendant 1, who is the son of the non-party 10, and completed the registration of ownership transfer, such as the purport of the claim, and accordingly, the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the remaining defendants except the defendant 1, 2, country, defendant 4, and 5, is invalid without any cause.

(4) However, on December 5, 1975, the Plaintiff purchased 55/100 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet from Defendant 2 in gold 50,00,000 won. As to the above real estate, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the above sale as to the above real estate, and as to the above real estate as to the service of a duplicate of this case by subrogation of Defendant 2 on the basis of the above claim for ownership transfer registration, Defendant 2 filed a lawsuit to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground that the above title trust is terminated in the future of the above country. Thus, Defendant 2 filed a lawsuit against Defendant 2 regarding the remaining real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 through 4 on the ground that the above trust is terminated, and Defendant 2 claimed that the above claim for ownership transfer registration against Defendant 2, the above claim for ownership transfer registration against Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and the above claim for ownership transfer registration against Defendant 2 and the above claim for ownership transfer registration against Defendant 2 were made in succession.

B. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2

In full view of the overall purport of testimony and pleading by Non-Party 2 as to Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 6 and 7, and evidence Nos. 12 and 13, the authenticity of which is presumed to be established, as a notarial deed, the plaintiff purchased from defendant 2 on December 5, 1975 the sum of 5,100,000 shares among the real estate on 38 parcels of 38 parcels of 19,00,000 and then on January 25, 1976, the non-party No. 11 transferred the status of the above sales contract to the plaintiff, and agreed on June 8, 1978. On the same day, the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2 were owned by the plaintiff and the non-party Nos. 12 and the non-party No. 2, who did not have any relation to the above 3rd unit of real estate, and did not have any relation to the above 3rd unit of real estate.

Then, the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the Defendant 2 is limited to the above real estate that can be registered under the name of Defendant 2 from among the above real estate purchased and sold. Accordingly, as to the real estate recorded in the attached list No. 8, the Plaintiff’s registration of ownership transfer against the Defendant 1, co-defendant 1, and 2, and as to the real estate indicated in the attached list No. 9, the remaining real estate was returned to Nonparty 1 for the purpose of preserving the above real estate under the name of Nonparty 1. Since the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the Defendant 4 was not established after withdrawal of the lawsuit against the Defendants at the first instance court on January 23, 1980, and the remaining real estate was returned to Nonparty 1, the lower court’s claim that the above real estate was returned to Nonparty 2 and the lower court’s claim that the above real estate was returned to Nonparty 1 for the purpose of establishing the title trust No. 3, and thus, it cannot be acknowledged as the remaining real estate for the reasons indicated above.

On August 17, 1973, the plaintiff alleged that the above agreement was null and void by notifying Defendant 2 that the above agreement was null and void, and by notifying Defendant 1 of invalidation on September 6, 1974, the above agreement was null and void or cancelled. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence No. 9 and evidence No. 110 as evidence of each invalidation notification, each of the above null and void notification can be viewed as null and void by the above agreement separate from No. 8-1 and No. 2, and otherwise, in this case, it cannot be viewed that the above agreement was valid for the plaintiff to claim that the above agreement was null and void or that the above agreement was cancelled. Accordingly, since the plaintiff's claim is groundless by the above agreement between the plaintiff and the above defendant 2 as evidence of each invalidation notification, it cannot be viewed that the above agreement is legitimate for the plaintiff to claim that the above real estate was not owned by the above defendant 2 as a sale and purchase agreement between the plaintiff and the above defendant 12.

C. Determination as to the remaining Defendants except Defendant 2, 4, and 5

As determined above, insofar as the Plaintiff’s right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer against Defendant 2 is not recognized as to the real estate recorded in the attached list, the Plaintiff’s right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer against Defendant 2 on behalf of Defendant 2 on behalf of Defendant 2 on the ground that he did not have the right to claim for the registration of ownership transfer, which is the requirement for the obligee’s subrogation right, or the right to claim for the performance of the registration of ownership transfer as to the above real estate under his name against the remaining Defendants except Defendant 2, countries, and Defendant 4 and Defendant 5, in successive subrogation with Defendant 2 and countries, shall be dismissed as inappropriate without the need to further determine the case against the above Defendants.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2 is without merit, and the plaintiff's lawsuit against the other defendants is dismissed. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair in conclusion on the part against the defendant 2 and the defendant's country, the part against the defendant 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the claim against the defendant 2 in the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed, and the lawsuit against the defendant's country is dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance on the remaining part is just and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal against this is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 89, 95, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Lee Han-young (Presiding Judge)