Whether one of the parties to a real estate exchange contract is obligated to directly implement the registration of transfer to a person who succeeds to the rights of the other party.

If the exchange contract on the instant real estate was concluded between the Plaintiff’s deceased father and the Defendants’ inheritee, even if the Plaintiff received all rights, such donation is nothing more than a legal relationship between the Plaintiff and the deceased father, so insofar as there is no agreement on the intermediate omission registration, the Defendants are not obligated to directly perform the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate pursuant to the exchange contract with the deceased father, unless there is an agreement on the intermediate omission registration.

Articles 554, 596, and 186 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant 1 and four others

Gwangju District Court Decision 82Na178 delivered on March 31, 1983

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The defendants' grounds of appeal are examined.

If the plaintiff's deceased non-party 1 and defendant 1's deceased non-party 2 agree to exchange real estate owned by the non-party 1 with the non-party 1's 1's 5-day mine area ( Address omitted) around 1920, and the non-party 2's 1's 1's 1's 1's 5-day 1's 50-day 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 2's 1's 1's 1's 2's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 2's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 2's 1's 1's 1's 1's 1's 's 's ''''''''''.

The court below determined that the plaintiff was entitled to seek direct implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership, and that the plaintiff succeeded to all rights such as the right to claim for the registration of transfer of ownership under the exchange contract held before the plaintiff's birth, but such donation is nothing more than a legal relationship between the plaintiff and the deceased non-party 1, and therefore, it cannot be formed a legal relationship that can exercise the plaintiff's right to claim for direct implementation of the registration of transfer of ownership of the exchanged object to the defendants. Thus, the court below should have deliberated and judged whether there was an agreement of interim omission on the grounds that the plaintiff claims that the plaintiff would directly perform the registration of transfer of ownership under the exchange contract to the defendants. The court below's decision that the court of first instance which accepted the plaintiff's claim on the grounds stated in its decision was justifiable and it did not err in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court of first instance which accepted the plaintiff's claim on the ground that it did not fall under the ground of appeal No. 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and therefore, it constitutes a violation of law.

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)