[등기공무원의처분에대한이의][공1996.5.1.(9),1189]
[1] Whether a registrar may seek the cancellation of a disposition which completed a registration procedure upon an application by a registrar pursuant to Article 178 of the Registration of Real Estate Act (negative)
[2] The meaning of "where the case under Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act is not registered"
[1] In a case where an active disposition was taken by a registry official upon the application of an applicant for registration, the cancellation of the registration shall not be claimed in a way of objection under Article 178 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, regardless of the fact that such a disposition was unfair, unless it falls under subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act.
[2] The case of Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act refers to the case where it is evident that the application for registration cannot be permitted by law because it is the purpose of the application itself.
[1] Article 5 subparagraphs 1 and 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and Article 178 of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [2] Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act
[1] [2] Supreme Court Order 84Ma99 dated Apr. 6, 1984 (Gong1984, 1013) 87Ma469 dated Feb. 24, 1988 (Gong1988, 592) Supreme Court Order 89Ma645 dated Nov. 30, 1989 (Gong1990, 448) / [2] Supreme Court Order 93Ma1645 dated Nov. 29, 1993 (Gong194, 200)
Appellant (Law Firm Taesung, Attorneys Kim Dong-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Busan District Court Order 94Ra51 dated December 6, 1995
The reappeal is dismissed.
As to the ground of reappeal
If an active disposition was taken by a registered public official upon the application of an applicant, even if the disposition was unfair, it shall not be claimed for cancellation of the registration in a way of objection pursuant to Article 178 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, apart from the dispute over the validity of the registration through a lawsuit, unless it falls under Article 5 subparagraph 1 or 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act refers to the case where it is obvious that the application for registration cannot be permitted by law, mainly by the purport of the application itself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 89Ma645, Nov. 30, 1989; Order 87Ma469, Feb. 24, 198; Order 87Ma499, Apr. 6, 1984); and Article 5 subparagraph 1 or 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act as asserted by the re-appellant.
In the end, the decision of the court below that maintained the decision of the court of first instance that dismissed the re-appellant's objection of this case is justified and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)