When a building becomes final and conclusive as owned by another person, whether it is the most trade to evade compulsory execution on the site.

After the conclusion of the judgment against Defendant B in the lawsuit for cancellation of ownership transfer registration filed by the Plaintiff on the site and its ground of this case, Defendant A asserted that Defendant A had used the ownership transfer registration for the instant land in the future of Defendant A, and Nonparty (B) who is not aware of the relationship with the sales contract with Defendant B and is also in the name of Nonparty (B) who was introduced in the sales contract and was in the name of the Plaintiff in the second year of 81 on the instant site, and considering that Defendant A had the demand for payment of property tax for the second year of 81 on the instant site, the building on the instant site was already determined as the Plaintiff’s ownership and that there was a dispute over the instant site, the purchase of the instant site with the purchase price (gold seven thousand,023,00 won) could not be considered in light of the empirical rule.

Article 108 of the Civil Act

Kim Man-cheon, Attorney Jeon Soo-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants, Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na1731 delivered on April 12, 1983

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

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant, hereinafter only referred to as the Plaintiff) attorney are examined.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of defendant 1 was passed through for the plaintiff's debt security, and that the secured debt was fully repaid and extinguished, and held that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of defendant 1 and defendant 2 was null and void as it was caused by the fictitious sale on March 12, 1981, which caused the plaintiff's claim for the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of defendant 1 and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of defendant 2, the judgment below rejected the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of each transfer of ownership registration in the name of the defendant 1 and defendant 2 on the ground that the sale contract between the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 cannot be deemed the most trade between the defendants, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the defendant 2 acquired the ownership of the land in the instant case as valid by the above sale and the obligation to refund ownership to the plaintiff was impossible.

(2) However, if the court below rejected Gap evidence Nos. 8-2, Gap evidence Nos. 11 through 14, Gap evidence No. 15, 28, Gap evidence No. 30, and evidence No. 1 of the court below's testimony and evidence No. 1 of the first instance court's investigation of the defendant No. 1 were examined as to the above facts that the defendant No. 8-2 and the defendant Nos. 11 to 14 were not aware of the above facts, and the defendant Nos. 1 to 2 and the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were not aware of the facts that the plaintiff's sale contract was issued for the above facts, and the defendant Nos. 1 to 2 and the defendant No. 2 were not aware of the facts that the plaintiff's sale contract was not issued for the above facts, and the defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and No. 280 were not issued for the above facts that the plaintiff's sale contract was not issued for the defendant No. 1 to 2, but for the defendant No. 1 to 1.

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

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young