An absentee administrator's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration and an act of preservation under Article 118 of the Civil Act.

Since the request for the cancellation registration of real estate ownership transfer registration procedure or the request for extradition is merely a preservation act, the absentee property administrator appointed by the court may do so without permission of the court, and it is different from the scope of the guardian's authority under Article 950 of this Act.

Article 25 of the Civil Act, Article 118 of the Civil Act, Article 950 of the Civil Act

Busan High Court Decision 201Na1448 decided May 1, 201

5. The term "the name of the defendant" means the name of the defendant.

Seoul High Court Decision 63Na155 delivered on December 20, 1963

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant-appellant, since the claim for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of this case is merely an act of preservation, an absentee administrator appointed by the court may do so without permission of the court, and it shall be different from the scope of the guardian's authority provided for in Article 950 of the Civil Act, and the original judgment in this opinion shall be justified and it shall not be recognized that there was an error of law

The issue is groundless.

As to ground of appeal No. 2

According to the explanation of the reasoning in the original judgment, it is evident that the cause for the registration of ownership transfer of the real estate (private) indication from the plaintiff Kim Jong-hee on October 10, 1952 is the sale and purchase by the plaintiff, and in light of the whole explanation of the reasoning in the original judgment, it is obvious that the defendant has occupied the real estate indicated in the list (B), (c), (d) (f) (f) (f) in the original judgment, and in light of the previous purport of the evidence and in particular, the context before and after the explanation of the reasoning in the original judgment and the original judgment, it is clear that the original real estate (private indication) was delivered to the defendant under the premise that the defendant was occupied by the defendant, even though Kim Jong-hee was the party, it is clear that the statement by the witness is merely a supplementary evidence after the completion of the lawsuit against him, and there is no theoretical basis that the statement by the plaintiff Kim Jong-hee was merely a criticism on the whole matters concerning the determination of evidence and the fact-finding in the original judgment, and there is no reason to be adopted or adopted.

As to ground of appeal No. 3

There is no evidence to conclude that the original judgment did not recognize the defendant's acquisition of the ownership of the real estate in this case and thus violated the principle of good faith, erred in the evaluation of anti-social order, or erred in our custom or reasoning.

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges in Article 400 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judges of the Supreme Court, the two judges of the two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge)