logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1971. 3. 23. 선고 71다225 판결
[제3자이의][집19(1)민,243]
Main Issues

A person who acquires the ownership by means of transfer may claim the fact that he/she acquires the ownership to a third party.

Summary of Judgment

A person who acquires ownership through the transfer for security may assert the fact that he/she acquires ownership to a third party, regardless of whether he/she acquires ownership by the transfer for security or whether he/she is liquidated.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 509 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellant

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Military production support in the first instance court, the Jeonju District Court Decision 70Na169 delivered on December 24, 1970

Text

The appeal shall be dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by the defendant's attorney are examined.

Upon examining the original judgment, the court below held that the plaintiff entered into a transfer security contract with respect to the goods of Articles 4 through 8 attached to the judgment of the court of first instance owned by the non-party, such as Won-si, in order to secure the payment of KRW 92,700 to the non-party's claim from the non-party by taking full account of the contents of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as well as the testimony of the non-party of the first instance trial, and recognized the fact that the non-party continued to possess the said building and used the said building by the loan contract. According to the above facts, the plaintiff's acquisition of ownership by the amendment of the seller's possession for the purpose of securing the right of collateral, in case where the plaintiff acquired the ownership of the movable property for the purpose of collateral security, it can be argued that the person who acquired the ownership of the movable property by the transfer security either is liquidated or fatal or it is unnecessary to distinguish from the non-party's testimony. Thus, even if the so-called weak original judgment is a security for transfer, it is reasonable to interpret to the purport of the appeal by the plaintiff.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Nabri-dong and Dobri-Jaking Hanwon

arrow
본문참조조문
기타문서