The case holding that the seller's obligation to transfer ownership registration pursuant to the sales contract cannot be deemed to have yet been determined as non-performanceable if the seller's child was awarded a successful bid in a discretionary auction procedure based on the provisional registration, in which a store registered provisionally in several names was sold.

A, at the time of entering into a sales contract by a seller, whose provisional registration is the person holding the provisional registration of a store of a buyer at the time of entering into a sales contract, issued a certificate of personal seal impression to cancel the provisional registration of a person holding the provisional registration of a person holding the provisional registration of a person holding the provisional registration of a person holding the provisional registration of a person holding the provisional registration of a person holding the provisional registration of a person holding the provisional registration of a person holding the provisional registration of a person holding the provisional registration of a person holding the same in order not to be subject to compulsory execution from the creditors, and if Eul, who is the son of the seller, was awarded a successful bid in the real estate auction procedure based on the provisional registration of the above provisional registration, the seller cannot be concluded to be unable to recover the ownership of the store from the seller Eul and implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the buyer, on the other hand, if the provisional registration of the person Gap's name was based on the prior registration of a person holding the provisional registration of a person holding the sale contract, and it was determined whether the registration of ownership transfer of the seller's will be reinstated by other means.

Article 390 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da450 decided Jul. 22, 1975 (Gong1975, 8610) (Gong1989, 1464 decided Oct. 13, 1992) 91Da34394 decided Oct. 13, 1992

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na62367 delivered on June 30, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The judgment of the court below as to the point that the lawsuit points out (the fact that a sales contract for the building of this case entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant is not the plaintiff because it was not known to the owners of other stores in the building of this case, and the price of the store in the decision that the plaintiff acquired the ownership from the defendant is assessed as stated in the judgment below) is justified in light of the evidence relation as explained by the court below, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or an incomplete trial, such as the theory of the lawsuit, and it is not acceptable because it is merely against the selection of evidence and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below. It is

As determined by the court below, the non-party 1, who is the provisional registration authority of the store of this case at the time of entering into the above sales contract, issued to the plaintiff a certificate of provisional registration for the cancellation of the above non-party 1's provisional registration with the certificate of personal seal impression for the cancellation of the non-party 1's provisional registration, on the ground that the non-party 1, who was the defendant's child in the procedure of auction of real estate rent under the above provisional registration at the Incheon District Court 93 Ma6120, which was based on the above provisional registration, was the defendant's child, cannot be concluded that the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 were unable to recover the ownership of the store of this case from them and perform the procedure of transfer registration for the plaintiff because the provisional registration of the above non-party 1 was made based on the plaintiff's false agreement with the plaintiff's end, and the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 did not know that the above plaintiff's ownership transfer registration was not fulfilled.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the 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 Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)