B. Where a registrar makes a registration of cancellation ex officio, if there is a third party who has an interest in the registration, the registration cannot be made unless a written consent or a certified copy of the court decision capable of setting up against it is submitted, and the third party who has an interest in the above registration refers to a third party who is likely to incur damage as a result of the restoration of a registration cancelled in the form of a registration entered in the registration, but where a registration is not compatible with the registration to be restored and a registration which is not compatible with the register is made in the register, unless it is cancelled first, the registration cannot be made unless it is cancelled. Thus, such registration (the principal registration of transfer of ownership based on the provisional registration in the above mentioned above) is merely subject to cancellation prior to the registration of restoration, and it is not necessary to separately obtain such consent. Thus, a request for consent to that person is unlawful as a claim against a person

2. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs and all appeals by the defendants 11, 12 and 13 are dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal as to each dismissed part of the above appeal shall be borne by each appellant.

(1) If the original registration cancelled becomes a joint application with respect to the recovery of cancellation registration, the joint application should also be made. However, if the registry official cancels ex officio any registration which cannot be cancelled, the registration of cancellation shall be made ex officio by applying mutatis mutandis Article 175 of the Registration of Real Estate Act.

Therefore, if a registry official cancels a registration of transfer of ownership by a third party which was made ex officio after a provisional registration due to the principal registration of transfer of ownership based on a provisional registration, if the principal registration based on the provisional registration is cancelled after the cancellation, it would eventually be cancelled after cancelling the registration with the invalidation of cause, the registration official must make ex officio the restoration registration.

However, in cases where a registry official must make a registration of cancellation ex officio, if there is a third party who has an interest in the registration, the registration of restoration cannot be made unless the written consent or a certified copy of the court decision that can oppose it has been submitted. Thus, the third party who has an interest in the above registration refers to a third party who is likely to incur damage as a result of the restoration of the registration cancelled in the form of the registry, but in cases where the registration which is cancelled in the form of the registry is not compatible with that which is to be restored is made, the registration of restoration cannot be made unless it is cancelled first. Thus, such registration is merely subject to cancellation prior to the registration of restoration, and it does not need to be separately obtained from the third party who has an interest in the request for permission

(2) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that Defendant 2 purchased 150 square meters out of the above land from Defendant 1 and completed the provisional registration of transfer of ownership of the forest in this case after the division of the forest in this case, and completed the provisional registration of transfer of ownership of the forest in this case from 127 square meters and 71 square meters (203 square meters) and 600 square meters (5603 square meters), respectively, prior to the division of the (2031 square meters) forest in this case, and that Defendant 1 acquired 600 percent, 250 percent, 150 percent, and 30 percent of 5603, respectively. The court below held that Defendant 2, above, purchased 150 square meters out of the above land and completed the provisional registration of transfer of ownership of the forest in this case from 127 square meters, thereby enabling Defendant 1 to cancel the above provisional registration of transfer of ownership of the forest in this case, and that Defendant 1 and the above provisional registration of transfer of ownership was cancelled ex officio.

(3) However, in the event that each of the plaintiffs' respective registrations was cancelled ex officio by the registration public official due to the reasons stated in the judgment below, the registration officer should make ex officio according to the previous order, and the registration officer should not follow the procedure of application for recovery registration between the plaintiffs and the defendant 1. Thus, the claim for the execution of the procedure of recovery registration against the defendant cannot be deemed unlawful as a claim against the person who is not the registration obligor.

In addition, the part exceeding 127/2031 of the shares of the same defendant in the registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant 2 is merely subject to cancellation as a registration that is incompatible with the registration of the restoration, and it does not mean that the defendant 2 is a third party having an interest in the registration of the restoration. Thus, the above request for consent against the defendant is unlawful as a claim against a person who is not qualified for the other party.

Ultimately, even though each of the above claims should be dismissed, the part of the judgment of the court below in excess shall not be dismissed.

2. We examine the Plaintiffs’ legal representative’ ground of appeal No. 1.

According to the facts established by the court below, after the transfer of ownership was registered under Defendant 2 in the name of Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 10, Defendant 11, Defendant 12, and Defendant 13, each share of the forest of this case was registered again, and their shares were 1452/200.

Therefore, it is clear that there exist 452/2031 shares in the name of Defendant 2, excluding the above Defendants’ shares and Defendant 2’s own shares, which take precedence over the Plaintiffs, even with the exception of Defendant 127/2031, among the remaining shares, it is possible to cancel the registration of cancellation of the Plaintiffs’ shares by cancelling the registration of transfer of shares equivalent to 344.36/2031. Accordingly, Defendant 3, etc. is not a third party having interests in the registration of cancellation of the Plaintiffs’ shares.

In the same purport, the court below is just that the above defendant 3 et al. is not a third party interested in the registration for the recovery of cancellation, but if not an interested third party, it is not a party as the other party to the request for acceptance, and thus, the lawsuit against the above defendant et al. should be dismissed, notwithstanding the fact that the above defendant et al.'s request for consent should be dismissed, it is unlawful that the court below dismissed the above request for consent without

3. We examine the second ground for appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the plaintiffs' preliminary claim for revocation of the fraudulent act against the defendant 2 was illegal if the sales contract between the defendant 2 and the defendant 1 becomes a fraudulent act at least at the time of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for revocation of the fraudulent act of this case was unlawful since one year has passed since it was known at the time of the lawsuit of this case. The plaintiff's claim for revocation of the fraudulent act of this case was made in September 7, 1979. The plaintiff's statement as of May 30, 1978 was deemed to have been filed as a statement of the legal brief as of 10:00 on July 21, 1978, which was stated on the date of the first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first instance court's first trial's first trial's first trial's first trial's first

4. We also examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 3 through 5.

The court below held that the registration of the above defendant 3, defendant 4, defendant 5, defendant 6, defendant 7, defendant 8, defendant 9, and defendant 10's share transfer or provisional registration and the share transfer registration of 154.2/203 among the shares of the above defendant 13 and defendant 12 shall not be based on the false statement or title trust because the above defendants acquired or acquired specific parts of the forest of this case from the defendant 1, respectively: Provided, That only the registration is completed through the transfer registration or provisional registration of the share transfer after the transfer registration of the above facts, and the registration of the above defendant 3, etc. shall not be based on the false statement or title trust. In light of the records, the court below did not err by violating the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, nor by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberation or judgment, and even if the registration of the above defendant 3, etc. is judged to be null and void as a false statement, the registration cannot be viewed as a valid registration, and there is no error in the legal principles as to the substantive relationship or substantive relationship.

5. We examine the first ground for appeal by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 11, Defendant 12, and Defendant 13 as well as the attorney involved.

(1) The court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party, who is the representative of defendant 1, was promised to divide and transfer the land of the usual trees amounting to 850 square meters of equity interest of the plaintiffs from November 4, 1976 to the plaintiffs from 2031 of the forest of this case, the defendant 1's agent, as one of the above fact-finding data. In light of the records, if the contents of the above Gap evidence No. 6 are examined as evidence and other evidences employed by the court below, it is just that the court below is admitted as evidence of the above fact-finding and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the evidence evidence No. 6 or misunderstanding the facts against the rules of evidence.

(2) In addition, the court below recognized the fact that the registration of transfer of shares in Defendant 11 was completed due to false representation and that the registration of transfer in the name of Defendant 13 and Defendant 12 was completed with respect to Defendant 204 among the shares in Defendant 111, and that the registration of transfer in the name of Defendant 13 and Defendant 12 was completed with respect to Defendant 13 and Defendant 12, and that the registration of transfer of shares in the name of the same Defendants exceeded 49.8 percent of the shares in the above purchased portion is an invalid registration without any cause. In light of the evidence cooking process which has undergone the above fact-finding by the record, we find it just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misconceptioning the facts such as the theory of lawsuit, or by

(3) In addition, according to the theory of lawsuit No. 18-1 and No. 2, the agreed number of Defendant 2 purchased from Defendant 1 is 150 square meters. However, according to the contents of the Criminal Records (Records No. 300) admitted as evidence by the court below, the above defendant agreed to purchase 150 square meters out of the forest land before the division of the forest land of this case, and then divided the forest land of this case, it is recognized that the above defendant's purchase portion in the forest of this case was agreed to 127 square meters. Thus, the court below was just in finding that the above defendant's purchase portion in the forest of this case was 127 square meters among the forest of this case, and there is no error of law by mismisunderstanding the facts by judging the evidence ability of the above documentary evidence, which is a disposal document, such as the theory of lawsuit.

6. We examine the Defendants’ legal representatives’ grounds of appeal No. 2.

In a case where a provisional registration is made for the preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer of all real estate, the procedure for principal registration of ownership transfer based on the provisional registration shall not be completed for all of the real estate. However, in a case where only a part of the above real estate is purchased by the person having the right to provisional registration, the provisional registration may be corrected to make a principal registration based on the provisional registration on the share in purchase. Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the execution of principal registration based on the provisional registration or in the misapprehension of the legal principles on the false indication, as in the theory of a lawsuit to determine that the part exceeding 127/2031 of the ownership transfer registration based on the provisional registration of Defendant 2 on the forest and field of this case exceeds 127/20

7. We examine the Defendants’ legal representative’ ground of appeal No. 3.

(1) From among the forest land of this case, the court below found that there was an implied agreement from Defendant 1 to acquire 500 square meters, Plaintiff 2, and Plaintiff 3 by specifying 500 square meters and 200 square meters, and that the registration was made by the method of the share transfer registration. In addition, the court below ordered the Plaintiff 1 to transfer the share of 127.5 percent after deducting 600/560 of the share of cancellation cancellation registration from 500/20 of the share of purchase, 282.5/2031, and Plaintiff 2 obtained 150/150 of the share of purchase from 150/2031 of the share of this case after deducting 150/150 of the share of cancellation registration from 150/20 of the share of purchase, from 20/200 of the share of this case, the court below ordered the Plaintiff 1 to register the purchase of shares of each of the above plaintiffs in the name of Defendant 2.

(2) However, among the transfer registration of ownership in the forest of this case under Defendant 2, it is clear that the transfer registration duty of Defendant 1 to the effect that, as seen earlier, the above transfer registration of ownership in the forest of this case takes precedence over the plaintiffs, 127/2031 and 344.36/2031 should remain 1559.64/2031, and if the combination of shares in Defendant 3, etc., consistent with the substance relationship determined by the court below, 1391.2/2031 should be deducted, the remaining shares in the name of Defendant 2, which can be returned to Defendant 1, should be calculated as 168.44/20, and unless there is any special circumstance that the transfer registration of ownership in the above defendant 3, etc. can be returned to the road, the court below should have determined that the above transfer registration of ownership in the above defendant 1, etc. is valid within the extent of 168.44/200 in the future.

Nevertheless, without taking such measures, the judgment of the court below ordering the registration of transfer to Defendant 1 as requested by the plaintiffs can be found to be erroneous in failing to exercise the right of explanation and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which is reasonable to reverse this part.

On the other hand, the court below's decision on the part that ordered the cancellation registration of share equivalent to 850/20 of the plaintiffs' purchase share Do 2031 Do 2031 as to the part that ordered the above defendant 2's purchase share Do 20/2031 Do 850 of the plaintiffs' purchase share is based on the right of share equivalent to the plaintiffs' restoration share, and it is evident that the claim for cancellation registration against the above defendant 1 is exercised with respect to the remaining share equivalent to the defendant 1's restoration share. If there is room for the non-performance as seen above, the claim for cancellation registration against the defendant 1 against the defendant 2 to the extent of non-performance impossibility, it shall be deemed that there is no benefit. Thus, it shall be reversed as to the part against the defendant 1, as well as the part against the defendant 1.

8. We examine the Defendants’ legal representative’ ground of appeal No. 4.

According to the records, it is identical to the theory that the transfer registration in the name of the plaintiffs has been completed in the forest ( Address 2 omitted) other than the forest of this case and some of the forest divided from this, but this is not deemed to be a performance of the obligation to transfer shares agreed upon between the plaintiffs and the defendant 1 as stated in the judgment of the court below, since each transfer registration in the name of the plaintiffs was completed in the forest of this case (No. 2 omitted) before the division was divided into each forest of this case (Provided, That in this case, the court below legitimately confirmed that the transfer registration in the name of the plaintiffs has been completed in the part of the transfer registration in accordance with the above agreement with respect to the forest of this case (No. 3 omitted). The court below did not regard the transfer registration in the name of the plaintiffs excluded from the land of this case as the performance of the obligation to transfer shares in the name of defendant 1 with respect to the forest of this case and the forest of this case, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a rejection of the defendants's defense of implementation.

9. Ultimately, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendants 1 and 2 and the part against the plaintiffs that rejected the request for acceptance on the registration on the cancellation of cancellation against the remaining Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Seoul High Court. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs and all appeals by Defendants 11, 12, and 13 are dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)