Whether the claim should be present and state on the date of pleading or on the date of preparation procedure.

The recognition and recognition of a claim shall not have the effect of recognition and recognition, even though the defendant who is a party to the claim has made a statement that he will appear on the date for pleading or on the date for preparation, and that it shall be entered in the protocol, and if it has been only submitted the briefs indicating that the defendant is duly admitted, and if it has not been present on the date,

Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da333 delivered on December 24, 1973 (Supreme Court Decision 10603DaDa10603 delivered on December 23, 197, Supreme Court Decision 21Da323 delivered on June 21, 200, Decision No. 206(32)914 delivered on December 24, 197, and Court Gazette

Plaintiff

Republic of Korea and eight others

Seoul Central District Court (70 Ghana12932) in the first instance trial

(1) The part between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Constitutional Court and the Dong Do Do Do dong Park shall be revoked.

On August 7, 1957, 1957, the Seoul Civil Court, Youngpo District Court No. 7486 of the receipt of the registration office of Youngpo District Court, Youngpo District Court No. 7486 of July 15, 1957, the decision of the court of first instance and the Dong Park Jong-dong's Report will implement each procedure for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration on the ground of sale.

(2) The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant Republic of Korea, Dong branch, Dong branch, Dong branch, Dong branch, Dong branch, Dong branch, Dong branch and Dong branch are all dismissed.

(3) The costs of litigation between the Plaintiff and Defendant Do Hun, the same kind of money and the second instance court shall be borne by the Defendants, and the costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff shall revoke the original judgment.

(1) On March 8, 1963.3.4 of the attached Table 1963.4, the defendant's title transfer registration for the above real estate No. 283.44. The defendant's title transfer registration for the above real estate No. 97.2 of the same title transfer registration for the reason of exchange on March 2, 1963.2, the defendant's title transfer registration for the same title No. 97.2 of the same title transfer registration for the same title No. 97.2 of the same title transfer registration for the same title No. 97.45.6.4, the defendant's title transfer registration for the same title No. 97.2 of the same title transfer registration for the reason of the above title No. 97.2 of the same title transfer registration for the same title No. 97.15, the defendant's title transfer registration for the same title No. 97.2 of the same title ownership transfer registration for the same title No. 97.45.15.6.5,6.1 of the same title of the defendant's transfer registration for the same title No. 197.2 of the same title of the same title

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants in the first and second instances.

1. (1) We examine the Plaintiff’s claims on the Defendant Republic of Korea, Dong-ho, Dong-ho, Dong-ho, Dong-ri, Dong-ri, Dong-ri, Dong-ri, and Dong-ri.

The real estate indicated in the attached list 1 to 4 is originally owned by the plaintiff, and the provisional registration on the part of the defendant's main body, such as the entry in the purport of the claim, has been completed, and again, the ownership transfer registration on the basis of the above provisional registration has been completed in the name of the defendant's main body and transferred before it thereafter, and each registration, such as defendant Kim Jong-do, Dong-hee, Dong-hee, Dong-ho, Dong-ho, Dong-ho, and Dong-ho, has been made in succession under the name of the

(2) The plaintiff asserts that the provisional registration of the name on the part of the defendant on the part of the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff on the part of June 25, 200, on the part of the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff on the provisional registration of the title on the part of the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff on the part of June 25, 200, the provisional registration of the title on the part of the plaintiff on the real estate was made under the name of the defendant on his own account of the non-party exclusive ownership who acquired documents, etc. necessary for the registration of the establishment of the title on the part of the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff on the part of his own debt. Even if not, the plaintiff found that the provisional registration was made as above, and if the plaintiff paid the above defendant on June 30, 1956, the provisional registration of the title on the part of the defendant on the part of the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff on the part of the plaintiff on the part of the above real estate and the title 333-5.

Next, the transfer registration of ownership registered in the name of the defendant in the name of the main body of the real estate was based on the final judgment of the Seoul District Court case No. 1058 of 4290 (the lawsuit against the plaintiff who became the plaintiff in the main body of the case). However, the above lawsuit is filed between the defendant Kim Gyeong-un and his knowledge of the main body of the case, and the decision became final and conclusive on August 31, 1967 by the method of receiving the summons, etc. served as the defendant in the above case on behalf of the defendant in the above Kim Jong-hwan, and the decision became final and conclusive on October 16, 1968 on the above judgment and dismissed the above judgment, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 16, 198 by the Seoul High Court, the judgment of the court of first instance revoked the above judgment, and the remaining registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant in the name of the main body of the defendant in accordance with the judgment revoked in the above judgment of the court of first instance is invalid and void.

(3) 먼저 위 가등기가 원인무효라고 하는 원고의 위 주장에 부합하는 듯한 원심증인 권중락의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제1호증의 1(각서), 동호증의 2.3(각 영수증), 동 제2호증(경위서), 피고 구본상, 동 맹헌, 동 박순보를 제외한 피고들의 공성부분의 성립시인 및 당심증인 김헌식의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제8호증(각서), 동 제9호증(자인서), 피고 구본상, 동 맹헌, 동 박순보를 제외한 피고들이 진정성립을 인정하고, 공문서인 갑 제10호증의 5(진술조서), 동호증의 6(진술서), 동호증의 8(증인신문조서)의 각 기재 및 당심증인 김헌식의 증언은 뒤에 나오는 각 증거에 비추어 믿을 수 없고 공문서인 갑 제12호증(공소장), 동 갑 제13호증의 1 내지 6(각 처분결과증명서)의 각 기재 및 원심증인 권중락, 당심증인 최광복, 동 최광욱, 동 심춘식의 각 증언은 이를 뒤받침할 증거가 되지 못하며, 원고의 나머지 거증으로써도 원고의 위 주장을 인정하기에 충분한 자료는 찾아볼 수 없으며 오히려 공성부분의 성립에 다툼이 없으므로 그 문서전체의 진정성립이 추정되는 을 제2호증(통지서), 을 제4호증(환부청구서) 성립에 다툼이 없는 을 제7호증의 1 내지 3, 동 제8호증의 1·2, 동 제22,23,24 각 호증(각 판결), 동 제14,16 각 호증(각 증명원)의 각 기재내용과 원심증인 권중락의 증언에 변론의 전취지를 모아보면, 원고는 1949.12.경 소외 박종열에게 본건 부동산 및 원고소유인 같은 동작동 산 33의 2, 산 33의 5 각 임야등 도합 6필지의 토지를 담보로 하여 융자를 알선하여 줄 것을 의뢰하면서, 위 각 토지에 대한 등기권리증과 인감증명등 소유권이전등기 소요서류를 교부하였는 바, 위 소외 박종열은 1949.12.25. 피고 구본상에게 위 각 토지를 대금 29,001,000원(당시 화폐단위, 이하 원으로 표시하는 금원은 1953년 제1차 통화개혁 이전의 화폐단위이고, 환으로 표시하는 금원은 위 통화개혁후의 화폐단위임)에 매도하고 당일 계약금 3,000,000원, 1950.1.25. 중도금 15,000,000원을 각 지급받고 피고 구본상에게 위 소유권이전등기 소요서류를 교부하여 주었으며, 잔대금은 6.25동란으로 완제되지 못하였는데, 매수인인 위 피고 구본상은 1954.2.26. 위 각 토지에 대하여 동인 명의로 소유권이전청구권보전을 위한 가등기를 경료한 사실, 원고는 1954.4.경 위 각 토지에 관하여 위 가등기가 경료된 것을 알고 피고 구본상을 찾아가 원고가 6.25동란전에 소외 박종열에게 융자알선의뢰를 한 경위를 말하고 원고가 실제로 위 박종열로부터 받은 금원은 금 1,400,000여원에 불과하니 금 300,000환만을 받고서 위 각 가등기를 말소하여 줄 것을 요청하자, 피고 구본상은 이를 승낙하되 금 300,000환을 1개월내에 변제하면 위 가등기를 말소하여 주기로 하고 만약 1개월내에 위 금원을 원고가 변제치 아니하면 원고는 소유권이전의 본등기를 이행하기로 원고와 위 피고 사이에 약정을 한 사실, 원고는 위 약정에 따른 금원을 변제하지 않을 뿐아니라 소유권이전본등기도 이행치 않고 있다가 2년이 지난 1956.5.경에 이르러 원고는 금 100,000환을 지급할 터이니 위 6필지의 토지중 위 같은동 산 33의 2 임야에 대한 가등기를 말소하여 달라고 하여 피고 구본상은 금 100,000환을 수령하고, 위 토지에 대한 동인 명의의 가등기를 말소하였고, 다시 1956.8.경 금 100,000환을 위 피고가 원고로부터 수령하고, 위 같은동 산 33의 5 임야에 대한 가등기를 말소하여 주므로서 본건 토지 4필지에 대한 가등기는 그대로 존속하게 된 사실 및 그 뒤 피고 구본상은 1957.6.경 위 1949.12.25 매매잔대금조로 금 51,010환을 원고를 상대로 변제공탁하고 원고가 이를 수령하므로서 위 매매대금은 완제된 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고, 위에서 배척한 증거외에는 달리 위 인정을 좌우할만한 자료가 없다.

(4) If the plaintiff's assertion that the principal registration of ownership transfer made in the name of the defendant on the following real estate is null and void, the above High Court's judgment No. 4, No. 5, and No. 3 (judgments) without dispute over the establishment thereof, gather together the whole purport of the oral argument, the above judgment No. 1058 (Evidence No. 3-4) of Seoul District Court Decision No. 67Na2387 (Evidence No. 4), which is the basis for the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant's main body, is revoked as the plaintiff's assertion that the principal registration of ownership transfer made in the name of the defendant on the following real estate, was revoked as the Seoul High Court Decision No. 67Na2387 (Evidence No. 4) and the above judgment No. 150 on the grounds that the above judgment of the High Court's judgment was defective in the legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant on Apr. 195, 195.

(5) According to the judgment on the legal brief submitted to the trial court on July 19, 1971, and records, the defendant's legal brief had previously been disputed by the court below on all the plaintiff's assertion. At the trial court, the defendant is a person who has no interest in the plaintiff's claim, and the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the plaintiff's claim is presented as of July 19, 1971, and again, the plaintiff's claim is asserted to the purport that the legal brief submitted as of October 12, 1971, which was submitted as of October 19, 1971, which was submitted as of July 19, 1971. Thus, since the defendant appeared at the date for pleading and made a statement to recognize the plaintiff's claim, it is obvious that only with the legal brief submitted by the defendant on July 19, 1971 does not have the effect of recognizing the plaintiff's claim, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff's claim for confession and the legal brief cannot be asserted again since the plaintiff's claim for confession cannot be asserted.

(6) Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim seeking the cancellation of each of the above registrations made in sequence in the name of the remaining Defendants based on each of the above registrations and the above registrations, on the premise that the principal registration of the above provisional registration and ownership transfer, which was made in the name of the Defendant on the real estate was null and void, shall not be accepted.

2. We examine the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant’s senior citizen.

The provisional registration of the name on the part of the defendant was made, as shown in the above, with respect to the real estate, and the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made by the defendant on June 10, 1957, prior to the completion of the principal registration of the ownership transfer, following the registration of the non-party Lee Jong-hee who received the registration of ownership transfer from the plaintiff on the real estate, is not disputed between the parties.

The plaintiff, around May 30, 1956, ordered the above non-party Lee Jong-hee to arrange the loan of the above real estate as a security and entrusted with the documents required for the registration of ownership transfer on the above real estate. The non-party Lee Jong-hee argued that all the registration of ownership transfer on the above non-party Lee Jong-hee and the defendant Lee Jong-hee were null and void, since he passed through the registration of ownership transfer on the above real estate without title and completed the registration of ownership transfer as above in the name of the defendant Lee Jong-hee-won, the above non-party Lee Jong-hee and the defendant Lee Jong-won, who argued that the registration of ownership transfer on the above real estate was null and void, and the registration of ownership transfer on the above real estate was made after the provisional registration on the part of the defendant Lee Jong-hee, who explained above, and the above provisional registration and the principal registration on the above provisional registration were passed through the above provisional registration on the above provisional registration. The plaintiff's assertion that the above provisional registration and the principal registration on the defendant Lee Jong-hee's real estate are presumed to be presumed to be null and void.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant long-term care center is not necessary to make a decision on other points.

3. We examine the Plaintiff’s Constitutional Court and the Plaintiff’s claim on the same Park Jong-dae.

The plaintiff asserted that the ownership transfer registration, as stated in the above paragraph (1), following the registration of the ownership transfer on the part of the defendant's main body, is invalid as stated in the above Paragraph (1). Thus, since the registration of the defendant's Constitutional Court and the Dong Park Jong-dae, which was based on the above Paragraph (1) is also null and void, the above registration should be cancelled. The defendants asserted that even though they were summoned as legitimate by service by public notice, they shall not be present at the date of pleading of party members (in the original trial, they did not attend even after being summoned by service by public notice) as well as the written reply and other preparatory documents are not submitted to the plaintiff's argument clearly and clearly, so they shall be deemed to have been led to the confession. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the above defendants shall be accepted as justified.

4. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants as stated in paragraphs 1 and 2 above is without merit, and all of them are dismissed, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Franchising and Dong Gambling is justified, and thus, it is decided to accept it. The part concerning Defendant Franchising and Dong Gambling, which is different from the original judgment, is unfair, and the Plaintiff’s appeal against this part is reasonable. Therefore, the original judgment against the Defendants is revoked, and the remaining Defendants’ appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 95, 96, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to bear the costs of lawsuit.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Justice) and Noh Jeong-hee