The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of incomplete deliberation on the specific subject matter of lawsuit.

The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of incomplete deliberation on the specific contents of the subject matter of lawsuit.

Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff’s Attorney Cho Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 84Na266 delivered on October 10, 1985

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Busan District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined (based on permission appeal).

A summary of the facts acknowledged by the court below is as follows.

In other words, the non-party 2 purchased the above part of the forest land from the non-party 1 to the non-party 4 (the non-party 1 to the non-party 4) and then purchased the above part of the forest land from the non-party 5 (the non-party 2 to the non-party 4) to the non-party 1 to the non-party 5 (the non-party 2 to the non-party 4) without any ownership transfer registration for the non-party 1 to the non-party 5 (the non-party 1 to the non-party 4) to the non-party 5 (the non-party 2 to the non-party 5) to the non-party 1 to the non-party 7 (the non-party 1 to the non-party 4) to the non-party 1 to the non-party 5 (the non-party 1 to the non-party 4) to the non-party 1 to the non-party 5 (the non-party 1 to the above part) to the non-party 1 to the above part

In addition, the court below made a decision to the effect that the claim of this case seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant, since the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the above non-party 2 and non-party 4, or the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant, which was based on the above facts based on the ownership transfer registration in the forest of this case, is an invalid registration that lacks legitimate cause.

However, as determined by the court below, if part of the forest land of this case, which was purchased by the plaintiff among the above (No. 2 omitted) 4th 8th 3th Y of the above (No. 4th 8th Y), is specified and part of the forest land of this case divided in sequence 1 is included in the above west 1 information purchased by the plaintiff, the plaintiff eventually purchased part of the forest of this case, and even if the above transfer registration of ownership in the defendant's name on the forest of this case was invalidated, the plaintiff who purchased part of the forest of this case can request the cancellation of the above invalid registration only with respect to the forest land purchased by the plaintiff to preserve the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership (by subrogation of the seller), and there is no title to the remaining part. Thus, the court below should either disclose the right to claim the cancellation of the entire forest of this case, including the part that the plaintiff asserted to purchase part of the forest of this case, or accept the claim of the plaintiff of this case only to the following part of the specific forest of this case.

Although the court below acknowledged that only part of the forest land of this case was purchased in a specific manner, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the plaintiff's registration as to the entire forest land of this case is ultimately erroneous, or the ground for illegality is a ground for reversal as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Since there is a ground for appeal that is inconsistent with this, the judgment of the court below is not necessary to determine other grounds for appeal, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges by the assent of all participating Justices. (In this case, the defendant did not submit a statement of the grounds for appeal along with his right, and the appeal of this case should not be dismissed, but since the judgment of the court below is reversed by the permission order as seen above, the purport of the appeal is not stated separately).

Justices Man-hee (Presiding Justice)