The requirements for the final transferee to exercise the right of direct ownership transfer registration to the first transferor on account of the agreement on the intermediate omission registration.

In order for the last transferee to exercise the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership directly to the first transferor on the grounds of the agreement on the intermediate omission registration, it is required that there was an agreement on the omission of the intermediate registration between the first transferor and the last transferee, in addition to the agreement between the first transferor and the last transferee on the middle omission registration.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Suwon District Court Decision 93Na1531 delivered on July 27, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal:

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below are acceptable, and there is no error of law that misleads the facts against the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit. We cannot accept the issue because it criticizes the determination of the evidence belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below and the recognition of facts. There is no reason to argue.

2. On the second ground for appeal:

In the event that real estate was transferred by transfer, the final transferee cannot directly request the first transferor to register the ownership transfer in his name unless there is an agreement between the former transferor and the latter transferee. In order to exercise the first transferor's right to claim the ownership transfer registration by agreement between the latter and the first transferor on the interim omission registration, in addition to the agreement between the first transferor and the latter, the latter transferee is required to have an agreement of omission of registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da5761, Apr. 23, 1991).

The court below's decision that the plaintiff can directly file a claim with the defendant for the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer by recognizing that there was an agreement between the non-party 1 and the plaintiff who is the last transferee, who was delegated by the defendant as the first transferor to the apartment of this case. There is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles

However, according to the testimony of the court of first instance and the witness of the court of the court below, it can be recognized that the above non-party 2 attended the defendant's wife and the non-party 1 entrusted with the disposal authority of the apartment of this case to the plaintiff in the form of selling the right to sell the apartment of this case, and the non-party 1 entrusted with the disposal authority by the defendant, and the non-party 1 did not accept the argument of the lawsuit. The argument of the lawsuit cannot be accepted. The arguments are without merit.

3. On the third ground for appeal

In light of the records, there is no error in the judgment of the court below in violation of the principle of disposition right, and it is due to coercion or deception that the defendant delegated the right to dispose of the apartment of this case to the above non-party 1. The argument of unfair legal act is ultimately attributable to the court below's failure to prove evidence preparation and fact-finding, which are the exclusive right of the court below, and it is without merit. All arguments are without merit.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-ju (Presiding Justice)