In cases where the principal registration based on a provisional registration is made for the owner of a real estate on which a provisional registration has been made to pay the necessary or useful expenses, whether it becomes an input of expenses to another person's goods.

It is reasonable to regard that “A” in relation to which the ownership of the real estate on which a provisional registration has been made is transferred, to have paid necessary or beneficial expenses to this real estate, as the payment of the necessary or beneficial expenses is made within the period of occupation “A” in relation to the title holder of the ownership transfer registration who is cancelled ex officio because it is a registration in conflict with the registration after the provisional registration is made by going through the principal registration based on the provisional registration, and the legal relations with “B” in relation to “B” or “

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1

Shincheon Park, a foundation, Attorneys Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 75Na2962 delivered on July 9, 1976

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the Defendant’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

(1) As to the first ground for appeal, the lower court recognized that the sale and purchase between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty did not constitute the most trade by false declaration of intent in collusion with one another, and even if the record is recorded, there is no illegality in violation of the rules of evidence such as violation of the rules of experience in the process of fact-finding.

(2) As to the second ground for appeal, the court below held that the sales contract with the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as an anti-social invalidation even if the sales contract with the Plaintiff is a breach of trust, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff actively solicited the Nonparty and had the Nonparty sell at a low price the same as the Defendant’s head.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding conducted by the court below is legitimate, and there is no error of violation of the rules of evidence by misunderstanding the judgment of evidence, and there is no error of violation of the law applying the legal principles of Article 103 of the Civil Code to wrong interpretation.

(3) According to the judgment of the court below as to the third ground for appeal, it is clear that the forest at issue in this case was owned by the defendant from May 14, 1971, until the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the non-party holding the provisional registration as of December 30, 1972. Thus, even if the defendant spent necessary or beneficial expenses between March 1972 and May 30, 1972, this does not necessarily mean that the right of retention is not likely to occur since the defendant spent necessary or beneficial expenses for the land in this case from March 1972 to May 14, 1971, which goes through the ownership transfer registration as of May 14, 1971, which goes through the provisional registration as of December 30, 1972, which goes through the provisional registration as of December 30, 1972, which goes against the legal relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party holding the ownership transfer registration and the non-party holding the ownership transfer registration as of this case.

In the position of party members and opposing parties, the first instance court erred by misapprehending the legal principles. This argument is reasonable.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)