Limit of authority of a person who has completed the registration of transfer by payment contract for repurchase;

If a registration of ownership transfer has been made by a payment in substitutes agreement with a special contract for repurchase, the ownership of the real estate shall be transferred at the time of the registration of ownership transfer: Provided, That the former owner merely holds the right to repurchase within the period of repurchase, and even if a person provided another person with repurchase real estate for the purpose of bonds security such as provisional registration of mortgage, it cannot be said that there

Article 446 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (69A832)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall deliver to the plaintiff, etc. 54 square meters (number 2 omitted) of Dong-dong (number 1 omitted) equivalent to 50 square meters in Gwangju City (number 1 omitted).

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

A provisional execution may be carried out only under the above paragraph (1).

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, etc.

The facts that the defendant occupies the same site as the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made on October 8, 1968 by the defendant on the site stated in the purport of the claim from the Gwangju District Court (No. 24188) on October 8, 1968, and the fact that the defendant occupies the same site as that of the purchase made on October 5

The plaintiff asserted that the non-party 1 was the representative director of the non-party 2 corporation, and the non-party 1 did not perform the construction work in the so-called Samho-gun area located on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's pre-payment of the above non-party 1's obligations to the above non-party 1 and the non-party 2's pre-payment of the above non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's counter-party 1's.

In light of the above facts, it is difficult for the defendant to accept 1,90,00 won in arrears from the non-party 2 corporation whose representative director is the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's testimony, and there is no dispute over the part of the evidence No. 1's establishment of the witness Gap's testimony, and the defendant recognizes the above part of the evidence No. 2's name, so considering the witness's testimony and the whole purport of the party's argument that the whole authenticity is presumed, as alleged in the plaintiff's temporary landscape, the non-party 1's non-party 2 corporation whose representative director is the plaintiff's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's right right right right.

Thus, the land of this case is owned by the plaintiff, etc. and the defendant is obligated to deliver it to the plaintiff, etc. according to the above agreement. Thus, the claim of the plaintiff, etc. is justified and the decision of the court of first instance with the same result is just, and this appeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, 93, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Dong-chul (Presiding Judge)