Where the purchaser of real estate has entrusted the ownership to a third party and registered the transfer under the name of a third party directly, the method of restoring the ownership due to the cancellation of the sales contract and the intermediate omission registration.

Where a real estate buyer has entrusted the ownership of the real estate to a third party and directly passed the registration of ownership transfer from the seller to the third party, if the sales contract is cancelled and the seller intends to recover the ownership, the seller may cancel the trust contract with the third party in subrogation of the buyer, and request the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer.

Dae Chang Trade Corporation

Park Byung-gu et al.

Seoul District Court Decision 4294 Civil Gong1772 delivered on September 12, 1962, Seoul High Court Decision 4294 delivered on September 12, 1962

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal by the Defendants’ agent are examined in sequence.

(1) As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the argument is as follows.

The court below acknowledged the following facts: (a) Defendant Park Byung-chul acquired the status of the purchaser of the instant real estate sale contract between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Kim Jong-hwan; (b) on October 22, 1948, when the seller was unable to perform his duty to purchase and sell the Plaintiff, Defendant Park Byung-chul, the purchaser of the newly agreed obligation on November 17, 1948; (c) that the Plaintiff would return the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendants first performed to the Plaintiff as its original condition; and (d) that Defendant Park Byung-chul did not perform his obligation until the agreed date; and (e) that the Defendants did not perform his duty to purchase and sell the Plaintiff’s original status. In addition, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to whether the terms and conditions of the Plaintiff Park Byung-chul, which were returned to the Plaintiff as of the date of the next determination, were unlawful since it did not affect the buyer’s duty to purchase and sell the Plaintiff-Appellant’s original status, and thus, did not mean that the Plaintiff’s duty would lose its original status.

(2) As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the omission of intermediate registration. In other words, if the plaintiff is true, the legal relations between the defendant Park Byung-chul and other defendant two are deemed trust relations, and the plaintiff cancels the trust contract between the defendants on behalf of the truster for the purpose of restoring the name of the owner of the real estate in his own future, so as to restore the title of the real estate, the reversion of rights due to the cancellation of the trust should be deemed to belong to the defendant Park Byung-chul and again belong to the plaintiff again. Therefore, the court below should pay attention to this point, and the judgment of the court below is justified in holding that the plaintiff's right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration in his own name and the third party's right to claim the cancellation of the trust contract should not be deemed to be a seller's right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration in his own name and the third party's right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration as seen above. However, the court below's decision is justified and justified in its reasoning.

As seen above, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the highest leapbal leapbal leapbal of the red net leapbal.