Requirements for veterans of the right to seek a judgment of confirmation

Since a person who is entitled to file a final judgment on ownership is limited to a present owner, he/she has already sold a house to another owner and changed the name of the owner in the house ledger, and in cases where the transferee has passed the registration of ownership preservation, the transferor cannot claim ownership, and therefore there is no benefit to file a lawsuit for the confirmation of ownership unless there is a special reason

Song-dong, Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Attorney Han Sung-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant of the Republic of Korea's legal representative

Seoul District Court of the first instance, the Seoul High Court of the second instance, 52 civil defense 76 decided July 22, 1952

The original judgment shall be destroyed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The ground of appeal by the defendant representative is that there is a trial depression and there is a violation of the rules of evidence. In other words, the judgment of the court below is based on the evidence Nos. 2 and 3.4.6 of the same 3.4.6 of the same 4.2, and it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff purchased the main building of the order shop from the commercialization of Japan, Japan, the short-term period of January 10, 4277 and paid the amount of the compensation for the damage. However, although the plaintiff purchased the site of the building of the building of this case from the commercialization of Japan, the plaintiff purchased the building site of this case from the commercialization of Japan and passed the registration speed for the building site of this case but only completed the ownership transfer report on the house ledger as the non-existent relation, and submitted the evidence No. 2 and evidence No. 3.1 of the 3.4.6 of the same 3.4.6 of the same 4.

According to the records, the lawsuit claiming the existence of the right to the claim ex officio is possible only when the right holder has a benefit to immediately determine the existence of the right, and if the records show that the ownership transfer was made in the name of the plaintiff in the house register as of March 1, 4277 with respect to the principal house as of March 1, 427, which was used as evidence by the plaintiff, and it is obvious that the title transfer was changed from the plaintiff on May 25, 4278 to the plaintiff again as of May 25, 4278, and that the building was not registered until the time. (In addition, according to the records entered in the copy of the register compiled in the records, the title transfer of the house was already transferred to the non-party, and thus, the plaintiff cannot assert the ownership transfer to the non-party, and therefore, the plaintiff's appeal cannot be justified by misapprehending the legal principles as to the plaintiff's appeal.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice)