The appeal against the judgment in favor of the winning party is not allowed, and there is no object or interest to file an appeal with the party who won the entire winning case.

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Daejeon District Court Decision 72Da218 delivered on December 8, 1972

Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed, and Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

As to Defendant 1’s appeal

An appeal is to seek a change of cancellation of a judgment disadvantageous to himself/herself in favor of himself/herself, and the appeal against the judgment in favor of him/her cannot be allowed in view of the nature of the appeal system. Therefore, the party who won the original judgment in favor of him/her does not have any target or interest to file an appeal.

However, according to the reasoning of the lower judgment, it is clear that the lower court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 1 in its entirety.

Thus, the appeal of this case filed by Defendant 1 who won the whole winning the appeal is unlawful, and this does not mean the nature of correction.

Defendant 2's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

However, the original judgment ordering Defendant 2, the owner at the time of expiration of the period of acquisition of ownership to implement the procedure of registration of ownership transfer is just, and there is no error of law as asserted in the lawsuit. In this case, the person liable for registration should be the owner at the time of expiration of the period of acquisition.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

However, the court below did not order the registration of transfer of ownership based on sale on February 5, 1948, but ordered the registration of transfer due to the expiration of the acquisition period of ownership on February 5, 1968, and therefore there is no room for a problem under Article 10 (1) of the Addenda of the Civil Code, and therefore, there is no further question that the original judgment was in violation of the provisions of Article 10 (1) of the Addenda

Accordingly, Defendant 1’s appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is unlawful, and Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench, applying Articles 95, 93(1), and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Justices Kim Young-chul (Presiding Justice)