1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below asserted that the plaintiff's action against the plaintiff in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate Ownership (road No. 172m2) against the plaintiff in the name of Nam-gun, Nam-gun, for which the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in accordance with the name of Nam-gun, Nam-gun, and that the defendant succeeded to the defendant's obligation to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership against the plaintiff in the Nam-gun, as the plaintiff was transferred to the defendant on July 1 of the same year as the land in this case was transferred to the defendant on July 1 of the same year, and that the defendant's action seeking cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership against the plaintiff in the name of Nam-gun, Nam-gun is not appropriate since the lawsuit against the person who is the person responsible for registration, or who is not in such position, was filed against the third party with respect to the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nam-gun, and thus, it cannot be said that the registration of transfer of ownership of the plaintiff's title No. 168.

2. According to the records, the plaintiff filed a registration of cancellation against the defendant on the ground that the defendant succeeded to the Namju-gun-gun in the market value of the land of this case, and the defendant also asserted that the grounds for registration of cancellation are legitimate on the premise that the defendant succeeded to the land of this case from the Nam-gun-gun in the market value of the defendant through the first and second instance court, or that the registration is valid on the ground that it conforms to the substantive relations, even

3. Furthermore, according to the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2-2, 4-1, 5, 5, 6 and 7, if the above guarantee certificate for the land of this case was prepared and submitted between January 24, 1980 and March 24, 1980 and the confirmation certificate was issued on June 27, 1981 and the transfer registration was completed on August 31, 1981 at the commission of the Southern-gun. Meanwhile, according to the Act on the Establishment and Change of District under the jurisdiction of Seo-si, Seo-gu, Jeju-do, Jeju-do, and Seo-do, and Seo-do, which had jurisdiction over the above land of this case, the above transfer registration was cancelled, and if the land of this case had been transferred to the above Si-Gun, the above local government's right to the land of this case was not transferred to the Nam-gun and the above local government's new ownership transfer registration was established on the ground that the land of this case was not transferred to the jurisdiction of the above local government.

4. Accordingly, the court below erred by misapprehending the purport of the defendant's answer or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the above Local Autonomy Act and the standing as a party, and the grounds for appeal are with merit to the extent of pointing this out.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)