[소유권보존등기말소청구사건][고집1981민,36]
2. Effect of double registration
Under the current Registration of Real Estate Act taking the principle of one real estate form for the registration of real estate, if two or more registrations of preservation of ownership for the same real estate have been completed at time, the registration completed first at time shall be valid and the registration completed later shall be null and void: Provided, That if two or more registrations of preservation of ownership have been completed because the person who registered the same real estate is different from the person who registered the same real estate, only if there is a dispute as to the validity of the registration of preservation between the other persons who registered the same real estate, the registration shall enter the substantive relation
Article 15 of the Registration of Real Estate Act
Supreme Court Decision 78Da1648 delivered on January 16, 1979 (No. 34 of Article 186(7) of the Civil Act, No. 608 of the court bulletin, No. 11757 of the court bulletin), 80Da3259 delivered on August 25, 1981 (No. 666 of the court bulletin, No. 14298 of the court bulletin), and 81Da451 delivered on November 24, 1981
Plaintiff
Korea
Government Branch of the Seoul District Court (79 Gohap518)
The appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
On November 24, 1961, the Defendant fulfilled the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership preservation, which was completed on November 24, 1961, for the registration of cancellation of ownership preservation, which was completed on November 24, 1961 with respect to the portion of 283 square meters prior to the so-called Seosan-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.
The same contents as the purport of the request, except that the judgment of the first instance is revoked.
The fact that the registration of the preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was made with the registration number No. 1202 on November 24, 1961, as stated in the purport of the claim as to the 283 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "the land of this case") prior to the so-called Seo-gun, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gyeonggi-do (number omitted) on November 24, 1961 and the registration number No. 4713
The plaintiff asserted that the land was distributed to the non-party because the defendant distributed farmland to the non-party, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of repayment in the future of the non-party, the plaintiff was entitled to make a new registration of ownership transfer in the defendant's name No. 3205 of the above registration number No. 5160 of the above registration number on April 10, 1963. Accordingly, the plaintiff acquired 21/283 shares of the land in this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the above non-party, and the plaintiff is a co-owner who purchased 21/283 shares of the land in this case and completed the registration after the above transfer, and is entitled to the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer as stated in the purport of the claim that was made in the above sale process under the defendant's name that was made for the preservation of the land.
Under the current Registration of Real Estate Act, where one real estate is subject to the principle of one real estate registration, the registration already made shall be valid, and the registration made later shall be null and void (Supreme Court Decision 78Da1648 delivered on Jan. 16, 1979, Supreme Court Decision 78Da1648 delivered on Jan. 16, 1979). However, in a case where the registration of two double ownership registration has been made on the same real estate differently from the titleholder, if there is a dispute as to the validity of the registration of the preservation between the other registrant, it shall be decided that what kind of registration was made on the basis of the true ownership only if there is a dispute as to the validity of the registration of the preservation, and according to the facts and the plaintiff's assertion, the registration of ownership preservation made on Apr. 10, 1963 under the above registry number 5160 delivered on Apr. 10, 196.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit under the premise that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant, which was made after the above registration number 5160, and the registration of transfer of shares in the name of the plaintiff is valid, shall be dismissed as without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance in this conclusion is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost.
Judges Lee Han-young (Presiding Judge)