2013Da5438 Registration of transfer of ownership

1. A;

2. B

3. C.

4. D;

5. E.

6. F;

7. G.

8. H;

9. I

10. J.

11, K

12. L.

13. M;

14.N

15.O

Type P:

Category AE:

Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na82529 Decided June 19, 2013

April 23, 2015

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

A. On the ground of the termination of the trust on December 14, 1994 with respect to Q 11,292 meters prior to the date of Ansan-si on March 25, 1995, and S 178 meters on the road, the registration of ownership transfer was made on May 26, 1995 on the RR 413 meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as "each real estate of this case") and on March 10, 1975, each type AE on the register was entered into a family registration number, "AK", "resident AL", and "N".

B. On the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership in Q and S land is null and void, Plaintiff K filed a lawsuit against the Class AE (representative) seeking the cancellation of the above registration of transfer of ownership on the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership in Q and S land is invalidated, but on March 18, 2005, the first instance judgment became final and conclusive on May 17, 2006 upon receiving the appeal against the above judgment and the final appeal, but all of the final appeals were dismissed. Plaintiff K held an extraordinary general meeting on the AE type on January 6, 2011 and decided to change the address of the clan from 'AP' to 'Seoul' from 'AP' to 'N' to 'K', and the representative of each of the instant real estate indicated on January 7, 2011 to 'AP' to 'K' and 'AP' to 'the representative of each of the instant clan registration' to 'AP'.

D. After that decision, the decision was rendered on September 22, 201 that "the resolution of the clan on January 6, 2011, which was held by one member of the clan on September 22, 201, without notice for convening a notification was invalid," and the above decision became final and conclusive on March 29, 2012, and on June 15, 2012, the registered titleholder whose name the representative of the clan was changed from "K" to "AL" to "K, and his address was changed.

E. However, on April 10, 2012, before the above change of indication was made on June 15, 2012, the plaintiffs filed the lawsuit of this case claiming the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of authentic names in lieu of cancellation of the above registration of each transfer of ownership, asserting that the transfer registration of ownership in the name of a clan on each of the real estate of this case was null and void on the registry of this case with the defendant as the PJ on April 10, 2012, which was before the above change of ownership was made on June 15, 2012.

F. Accordingly, the above warden was served on K as the Defendant’s representative, and the court of the first instance rendered a favorable judgment on June 15, 2012 against the Plaintiffs of non-litigation.

G. On October 8, 2012, NN filed a subsequent appeal against the judgment of the first instance, as the representative of the AE clan (hereinafter referred to as the "Appellant"). The address of the clan is "AL".

2. In the lawsuit of this case, the court below held that the appeal filed by the appellant by the clan is unlawful since it was filed by a person, other than the defendant, of the lawsuit of this case, because the appellant is the head of the Pol group, while the appellant is the head of the AH, which is the 10-year-old member of the AG, and the clan is the member of the joint ancestor group, which is the 10-year-old member of the AG, and as long as the common ancestor group is different from the name of the clan, it shall be deemed as a separate clan without relation to the name of the clan.

3. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

A. A. A party’s authorization shall be reasonably interpreted and confirmed by a reasonable interpretation of the entire purport of the complaint, including the details and cause of the indication and claim recorded in the complaint (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da26773, Dec. 20, 196). Moreover, registration of change of the indication of a registered titleholder is merely for the purpose of complying with the indication on the registry to the extent that the identity of the registered titleholder is maintained, and does not cause any change in rights (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da69983, May 12, 200).

Therefore, even if the change of the indication of a registered titleholder who changed the address to "AP after the registration of ownership transfer has been made in the name of a clan on the registry for each real estate of this case, it does not bring any change in the right. Therefore, a clan is still a legitimate registered titleholder for each real estate of this case on the original registry.

In addition, the instant lawsuit is a lawsuit claiming the implementation of the procedures for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of real name, instead of seeking the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the clan on the registry of each real estate of this case. Thus, the Defendant of the instant lawsuit is the person liable for registration, namely, the family registration number registered as the registered titleholder on the registry. Therefore, if the identity is recognized between the clan that is the appellant and the clan on the registry, the instant appeal should be deemed lawful.

B. However, in accordance with the above facts and records, the appellant revised the scope of the members of the clan under the above clan on August 10, 1994 from "after the end of the previous "AF" to "after the clan," and enacted the rules to establish its office "AL," and then registered as the representative of "N at that time." In addition, considering that the name, address and representative of the clan and the name of the clan are the same, ② the name of the clan as "AE," and the name of the clan as "AL," and the name of the clan as "AE," the clan whose address is "AL" is not different from that of the appellant, ③ on April 21, 2012, the appellant revised the scope of the members of the clan as "after the late end of the previous "AF," and it is reasonable to view that the appellant raised a new clan as the registration of the clan as the process of the appeal in this case, and therefore, it cannot be seen legitimate.

C. Nevertheless, the court below determined that the appeal filed by a clan, which is the appellant, is unlawful as it was filed by a person other than the defendant. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the confirmation of the parties or the identity of the clan. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

4. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Decision 200

A person shall be appointed.