“A” in the event that “B” was resold to the Plaintiff “B” and the Defendant died without completing the ownership transfer registration, and the Defendant was to succeed to his/her property and to prepare and deliver the documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer to “B” after completing the registration of ownership transfer for the Defendant’s heir and then completing the registration of ownership transfer to “B”, “B” in the course of preparing and delivering the documents in blank according to the agreement of omission of interim registration, and the Plaintiff did not receive the ownership transfer registration for the Plaintiff, even if the Defendant’s act does not immediately constitute a tort against the Plaintiff.

While real estate Gap, Eul, Byung, and Byung were sold to the plaintiff but without completing the registration of ownership transfer, the defendant died and completed the registration of ownership transfer in his/her front before his/her heir and completed the registration of ownership transfer for Eul and the preparation and delivery of documents required for the registration of ownership transfer for Eul, according to the agreement omission of intermediate registration, the result of the delivery and delivery of the documents in blank shall be the purchaser's right to another person, and the plaintiff shall not be deemed to be a tort against the plaintiff.

Article 750 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 70Na1501 delivered on September 3, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Plaintiff 1’s ground of appeal No. 1

On the grounds of the judgment below, the defendant's deceased non-party 1 sold this site to the non-party 2 before June 25, 1950, and the non-party 1 sold this site again to the representative non-party 3. On February 25, 1955, the plaintiff purchased this site from the non-party 3 from the representative non-party 3, but on December 5, 1955, the above non-party 1 died on December 5, 1953, although the defendant did not complete the registration of ownership transfer, and the defendant did not complete the registration of ownership transfer on the non-party 2's first time after preparing documents necessary for the registration of ownership transfer and delivered it to the above non-party 2. The non-party 1 omitted the intermediate registration and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the non-party 2, who was the subsequent purchaser, and the plaintiff's claim for the registration of ownership transfer against the non-party 681 and the non-party 3 was without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by all participating judges.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak Kim Kim-nam Shok Kim Young-young