Effect of changing the name of the purchaser of the property devolvingd

A. Change of the name of the purchaser of the property devolving upon the ownership can not be done except in the case of comprehensive succession such as death of the purchaser, and the voluntary change of the purchaser's name does not have any legal effect.

(b) the control of the principle of pleading is limited to the facts only, and the legal judgment based on the alleged facts belongs to the jurisdiction of the court;

Supreme Court Decision 64Nu103 Delivered on December 29, 1964

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Shin-yang et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 65Na56 delivered on January 21, 1966

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The gist of the grounds of appeal by the defendant's legal representative is as follows: first, although the court below acknowledged that the sale of the real estate in dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant's legal representative was caused by the sale of the real estate in dispute in this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant entrusted the right to sell the real estate in this case to the non-party, and according to the evidence shown in the case records, the above real estate is sold to the plaintiff in the mind of the non-party who is the second male of the defendant, and it is not possible to recognize the validity of the sale of the real estate to the plaintiff, but the defendant notified the non-party that the non-party would return the money in this case after receiving the price, and it is not erroneous in finding facts without any evidence, and second, according to the circumstance of this case recognized by the court below, it seems that the contract was cancelled after the conclusion of the contract, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence or by misunderstanding the legal principles that the contract was cancelled.

In light of the plaintiff's assertion based on the records, the summary of this case is that the real estate of this case was originally owned by the defendant on May 31, 1955, and the non-party 14,000 won of the down payment of 56,000 won on the day after entering into a sales contract for the property devolving upon the non-party 1's headquarters of the Marine Corps headquarters of the Marine Corps and EXE on May 31, 195 (70,000 won) shall be paid to the government office, and 56,000 won of the remaining payment shall be paid to the government office every year until May 31, 1963. The payment in annual installments was made to the plaintiff on February 1962, the defendant transferred the above real estate purchaser's status of the Marine Corps EXE and EX, and the defendant changed the ownership of the above real estate to the above real estate purchaser's ownership in full with the agreement to purchase the real estate at 30,000 won and 36,00 won.

However, in the sale of the property devolving upon the State under the Act on the Management of Property Belongings, changing the name of the purchaser of the property devolving upon the State shall not be an exception to the cases where there is death, etc. of the purchaser or any general succession, and the change of the name of the purchaser shall not be legally effective (see Supreme Court Decision 64Nu103, Dec. 29, 1964). Thus, even if the plaintiff's assertion itself is based on the above plaintiff's assertion itself, it cannot be said that the defendant has failed to acquire the ownership of the real estate in the instant case, even if it can be said that the defendant has acquired the ownership of the real estate in the instant case, it cannot be said that there was an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the above legal principles in the change of the name of the purchaser

The rule of pleading is limited to the facts, and the legal judgment based on the alleged facts belongs to the jurisdiction of the court. Therefore, without examining the grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney, the original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges, by applying Article 406 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Supreme Court Judge Ma-man (Presiding Judge) Ma-dong (Presiding Judge)