Where the contents and scope of an appeal by the appellant is inconsistent with the purport of the appeal by the appellant;

The defendant has filed an appeal against the original judgment within the period for filing an appeal, and it is clear that the defendant filed an appeal against the original judgment as well as the principal claim among the original judgment, and that the part of the counterclaim is not included in the column for the purport of appeal against the counterclaim. However, although the purport of appeal in this case does not include the content of the objection against the counterclaim, it is sufficient that the indication of the party concerned and the indication of the first instance judgment and the purport of appeal against the judgment are stated in the petition of appeal, and it is not necessary to include the contents and scope of the objection,

Article 367 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da662 delivered on June 15, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1685Da1685 delivered on June 15, 196)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Busan District Court Msan Branch Court of the first instance (72 Gohap129,277)

The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

(Main Office)

The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff, hereinafter the defendant) sought from the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, hereinafter the plaintiff, hereinafter the plaintiff) a declaration of provisional execution against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant, hereinafter the plaintiff) by the judgment of the court below that the plaintiff's expenses should be borne by the defendant and the judgment of provisional execution that the plaintiff's expenses should be borne by the defendant, and that the plaintiff's expenses should be borne by the defendant.

(Counterclaim)

The plaintiff, against the defendant, takes the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the termination of trust as of July 10, 1972, on the 198 Masan-dong (number 1 omitted) and 21 Masan-dong (number 21 omitted) and Masan-dong 20 Masan-dong 20 Masan-dong 20 Masan-dong 20 Masan-dong 20 Maju-dong (number 2 omitted), and on the 17 Maju-dong Maju-dong 17 Maju-dong Maju-dong Maju-dong.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed and stated in the counterclaim claim.

First of all, the plaintiff's attorney argues that the defendant's counterclaim shall not be permitted to file an appeal against the part of the counterclaim in the original judgment within the period of appeal, and that the counterclaim shall not be filed within the period of appeal, and that the application for correction of the purport of appeal against the counterclaim in September 4, 1973, which was after the expiration of the period of appeal by the defendant's attorney, shall not be permitted to file an appeal against the original judgment, and therefore, according to the records of this case and the contents of the petition of appeal, the defendant filed an appeal against the original judgment within the period of appeal, and it is clear that the defendant filed an appeal against the part of the counterclaim in the original judgment as well as the part of the counterclaim in the original judgment. However, although the contents and scope of the appeal against the counterclaim are not stated in the column of the purport of appeal in the original judgment, it is sufficient that the petition of appeal contains the indication of the party, the indication of the first instance judgment, and the purport and scope of the appeal against it, and since the appellant becomes clear if the contents and scope of appeal are closed until the closing of appeal.

Furthermore, I examine the merits of the principal claim and the counterclaim.

On October 26, 1966, with respect to each building and site stated in the main claim and counterclaim, which was originally owned by the defendant, the registration of ownership transfer was passed through the name of Hanil Bank Co., Ltd. on November 17, 196 on the ground of the decision to grant the successful bid for the Busan District Court's Busan District Court's decision on October 26, 196, and again on May 6, 1970, and the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was passed through the name of the plaintiff on the ground of the sale as of August 20, 1969 and the fact that the defendant occupied each building is not a dispute between the parties.

As to the plaintiff's plaintiff's assertion that the non-party is entitled to the above non-party 1's order for the transfer registration of the above building and the non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 1's party 2's.

Therefore, the defendant has no legitimate authority to occupy each building, and the plaintiff who is its owner has a duty to order each of them to do so. Thus, the plaintiff's main claim is justified and the plaintiff's main claim is justified, and thus, the plaintiff's main claim is justified and the defendant's counterclaim claim seeking the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer as to each building and building site is dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just and without merit, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of appeal expenses.

Judges Seole Hong (Presiding Judge) Lee (Presiding Judge)