Transfer and Delivery of Rights of Small Ships

The transfer of the right to a small ship of less than 20 gross tonnage is not effective only by agreement between the parties, and it is not possible to acquire the ownership unless it is delivered in the same manner as the general movable property.

Article 743 of the Commercial Act, Article 745 of the Commercial Act, Article 188 (1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Im-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 65Na1465 delivered on July 6, 1966

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's attorney's ground of appeal is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment, since the original vessel at the time of sale (hereinafter referred to as the "original vessel") is a small vessel with a gross tonnage of less than 20 tons, the transfer of the right to the vessel at issue cannot take effect only by the agreement between the parties concerned (Article 745, Article 743 of the Commercial Act). In accordance with the case of general movable property, the plaintiff can not acquire ownership unless he purchases the vessel at issue, even if he purchased it as alleged by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 188 (1) of the Civil Act. Accordingly, according to the original judgment recognized in this case, the vessel is the inherited property of the defendant 1, but only entered the name of the non-party in the shipment certificate for the purpose of avoiding attachment execution at the original time, and the possession of the vessel at issue was still Defendant 1, even if the plaintiff purchased the vessel at issue from the non-party, so long as the ownership of the vessel can not be acquired from the non-party, the court below's assertion that the ownership of the vessel at issue and the non-party's real right to the vessel is still valid.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

Even though the non-party was entered as a shipowner in the shipping certificate as of October 4, 1961 under the Decree of the Shipping Certificate (Ordinance No. 220 of October 4, 1961), it is nothing more than a title trust such as the original date. The non-party is still unable to claim the ownership of the ship externally because it was not delivered by Defendant 1, and the existence of a commercial custom that the transfer of ownership of a small-type ship is recognized due to the entry of the shipping certificate is legitimate rejection by the court below. Thus, the appeal against criticism of the court below cannot be adopted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Mag-kim Kim-bun and Magman