(b) Whether the presumption power of registration is broken where the person who registered the transfer of real estate ownership claims the form or process of an act of cause for registration different from that entered in the register;

B. The registration of real estate is valid even if the current state of true rights is publicly announced without reflecting the process or appearance that led to such public announcement. As such, the registration titleholder lawfully acquired real estate from the former owner for another reason without following the grounds for registration stated in the registry when acquiring real estate from the former owner, and asserts that the form or process of the act of registration is somewhat different from that of the act of registration, and only such assertion alone leads to the failure of presumption of registration.

In the event that the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to real estate, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership based on legitimate grounds for registration. Therefore, the dispute should be asserted and proved in the grounds for invalidation. The real estate registration is valid even if the current state of true rights is publicly announced without reflecting the process or form that led to such public announcement. Thus, in acquiring real estate from the former owner, the former owner asserts that the form or process of the act of registration is somewhat different from that of the cause for registration, and it cannot be said that the presumption of its registration is broken (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da46059, May 11, 1993). Thus, in such a case, the title holder's registration is invalid because the transfer registration of ownership was made against the intent of the former owner against the latter owner's registration.

On May 19, 1977, after the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of Nonparty 1, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of Nonparty 2, and on May 26, 197, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Plaintiff (the ground of inheritance on April 26, 1938), and on May 13, 197, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of Nonparty 1, Defendant (Appointed Party), and Nonparty 3 for sale on May 13, 197 (see evidence No. 5-2, No. 6,78, and evidence No. 8). Meanwhile, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s request for the registration of ownership transfer on the premise that the above real estate was made in the name of Nonparty 2, the heir of Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 3, and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of ownership transfer registration under the premise that the above agreement was made in the name of Nonparty 1, the representative of the above real estate, and the defendant 3's allegation.

(2) We examine the first ground for appeal.

In addition, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the designated parties 1, the defendant (appointed parties) and the non-party 3's joint name's transfer of ownership is invalid because there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the designated parties 1, the non-party 3's transfer of ownership is invalid due to lack of cause (the above part of the court below's disposition is legitimate) and the plaintiff did not have the right to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership by the above defendant, etc.

(3) Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)