Appropriateness of correction of indication of the party

Although the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party 1 at the time of filing the lawsuit, the non-party 1 was not the actual person, but the non-party 2 was the actual person, and the name on the family register is similar to the plaintiff, and the non-party 2 was aware that he had already died and became the inheritor, and it was justified that the defendant was corrected to indicate the defendant as the defendant.

Article 227 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 4292Da1230 delivered on October 13, 1960 (Supreme Court Decision 7190 delivered on November 13, 196, Supreme Court Decision 8Da160 delivered on December 9, 196, Supreme Court Decision 69Da1230 delivered on December 9, 1969 (Supreme Court Decision 9Da136 delivered on December 9, 196, Supreme Court Decision 17Da136 delivered on December 17, 200, Supreme Court Decision 227Da924 delivered on December 24, 200)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (69A1066) of the first instance court

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff's attorney shall execute the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on May 31, 1963 with respect to the plaintiff's 4th to 471 square meters in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant¡¯s attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. First of all, we judge whether the correction of the party's indication against the defendant in this case is justified.

The plaintiff's legal representative asserts that the defendant is the defendant as the non-party 1, and the defendant's legal representative is not the actual person. The plaintiff's legal representative is the non-party 2 who originally selected the plaintiff as the defendant and brought a lawsuit. The plaintiff's legal representative is the non-party 2, but the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff as the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's property. The defendant's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's testimony.

2. The plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2 were not entitled to the registration of ownership transfer for the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 2 (the plaintiff is non-party 1 and the non-party 2 is not entitled to the registration of ownership transfer for the non-party 5 and the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 6's non-party 1 and the non-party 4's non-party 2 were sold to the non-party 6's non-party 1 and the non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 2.

Therefore, this real estate is sold to Nonparty 4 on May 2, 1943, and it can be presumed that the real estate was sold to Nonparty 4, and that it was occupied in peace and public performance with the intention of possession each time from that time to that of the Plaintiff. Thus, it is deemed that the prescriptive acquisition has been completed on May 31, 1963, when Nonparty 4 commenced possession from June 2, 1943 to 20 years.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to perform the registration of transfer of ownership for the reason of the completion of the acquisition by prescription on May 31, 1963 to the plaintiff, that is, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit, which is the same as this, shall be justified and accepted. In conclusion, the original judgment was well made, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the defendant who has lost

Judges Salky's (Presiding Judge) No. 54