logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1960. 5. 5. 선고 4292민상672 판결
[소유권이전등기말소][집8민,060]
Main Issues

(a) Judgment dismissing a claim for the implementation of procedures for registration of ownership transfer of real estate due to cancellation of a trust, and the scope of such res judicata;

(b) the burden of proving that the possession is the intention of possession and was in good faith at that time;

(c)the suspension of approval and prescriptive acquisition for non-party persons;

Summary of Judgment

The res judicata effect of a judgment on the claim for the execution procedure of ownership transfer registration due to the cancellation of trust shall not extend to the case of the claim for the cancellation of registration of ownership transfer registration due to the fabrication of required documents for registration of the same real estate.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 199 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 245 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff-Appellee

Cho Ho-ho

Defendant-Appellant

Defendant

Judgment of the lower court

Seoul High Court Decision 59No108 decided July 30, 1959

Reasons

The final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect only on the judgment on the subject matter of a lawsuit which is the direct cause of the order, and upon the entries in Eul evidence 3-1, 2, and 3, on the premise that the final and conclusive judgment of Daejeon District Court No. 1955 in the above case No. 11 in the final and conclusive judgment of the case No. 1955, which was entered in the grounds of appeal No. 1, was made by the defendant's trust at the short-term of January 20, 1924, and that the plaintiff dismissed his claim seeking implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the above real estate on the ground that the plaintiff cancelled the above trust as of July 10, 193, which was not the first time of the judgment of the court below, the judgment was res judicata effect only on the judgment on the propriety of cancellation of the above trust agreement, and that the defendant's claim for ownership transfer registration of the above real estate was not unlawful on the grounds that the defendant's possession of the above real estate was not in conflict with the judgment of res judicata effect.

Justices Lee Dong-sung (Presiding Justice)

arrow