[소유권이전등기][공1989.2.15.(842),226]
If registration of a real right has been cancelled without any cause, the effect of such real right.
The registration is an effective requirement of real rights, and it is not a requirement for existence, and even if the registration of real rights is cancelled without any cause, there is no change in the validity of the real rights.
Article 186 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 81Meu870 Decided December 28, 1982 delivered on September 14, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1232 Decided October 25, 1988
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other than Defendant 1
Defendant 1 and 180 Defendants’ Professor-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 86Na4117, 4118 decided July 29, 1987
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.
As to the grounds of appeal (including the grounds of supplementary appeal):
1. The court below's rejection of the safety defense of the defendants on the ground that the plaintiff is a kind of unincorporated association with no legal capacity and the party ability under the Civil Procedure Act, and that the non-party 1 who filed the lawsuit of this case as the plaintiff's representative is recognized as the plaintiff's legitimate representative is correct, and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as the theory
2. Registration is an effective requirement of a real right, and even if a registration of a real right is cancelled without any cause, the validity of the real right is not changed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Meu923, Sept. 14, 1982; Supreme Court Decision 81Meu870, Dec. 28, 1982).
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the land in this case was originally owned by the State, but the non-party 2 transferred 9078/1308 shares to the non-party himself in order through the plaintiff 3 and the non-party 2 after the transfer registration was made. The above transfer registration of shares was cancelled on April 8, 1968 due to the ruling of the competent district court, and the above decision was cancelled and expanded by the procedure of recovery registration. However, the above non-party 2 did not have any errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the plaintiff's previous ownership registration within the scope of the non-party 3, the plaintiff and the non-party 2's new ownership registration, including the above cancellation registration, until the non-party 3, the plaintiff and the non-party 1, the non-party 2 transferred the whole ownership of the same as the above cancellation registration to the non-party 1, and therefore, the plaintiff's previous ownership registration should not be cancelled as evidence.
In addition, there is no theory that the judgment of the court below was clearly omitted by the decision of the court below against the defendant 143.
All arguments are groundless.
3. Therefore, all appeals by the Defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)