According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, registration of preservation of ownership was made under the name of the defendant on February 6, 1959, and registration of preservation of ownership was made under the name of the plaintiff on March 20, 1963, following the registration of transfer of ownership was made under the name of the non-party on the ground of the completion of repayment on December 31, 1954.

If the facts are the same, as the court below decided properly, if registration of preservation of ownership is entered in duplicate due to a different registration form for the same real estate, it shall be null and void without examining whether it conforms to the substantive right relationship.

The court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Of the time of the original adjudication, only the fact that the plaintiff purchased the farmland of this case from the non-party, the title to seek cancellation of the registration of the defendant's name cannot be created. This decision is identical to the argument that the plaintiff's failure to ask for an explanation as to whether the non-party is subrogated or not. However, even if the plaintiff's claim of this case is the purpose of subrogation, unless there are grounds for cancellation of the registration of preservation of ownership of the defendant's name of February 6, 1959, even if the plaintiff's claim of this case is the purport of subrogation, the judgment of the court below is not affected.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, 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.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)