[2] The case holding that a registration to be restored is inconsistent with a registration to be restored

[3] In a case where a right to a site is not a right to a site under the rules on the establishment of a right to a site, or a right to a site is deemed not a right to a site due to the establishment of a covenant on separate disposal, or the abolition of the regulations stipulated as a site under the regulations, whether the registration of change of the indication of a right to a site is applied to a case where a registration of change of the indication of a building on June 13, 1985, which is applied to a case where a registration of change of the indication of a right to a site was applied to a case where a registration of change of

[2] The case holding that if a transfer registration under a third party's name has been made for a co-ownership of land after a right to a site registration was cancelled on the register of apartment, the registration of the right to a site to be restored cannot be compatible with that of the transfer registration under a third party's name which was made on the premise of cancellation of the registration

[3] In a case where a building other than a site ownership becomes a site ownership under the rules on the establishment of a site ownership, or where a site ownership becomes not a site ownership due to the establishment of a separate disposal by the rules or the abolition of the rules stipulated as a site under the rules, the registration of change of the indication of a site ownership shall be filed in a lump sum by subrogation of all the relevant sectional owners or by subrogation of other sectional owners (see, e.g., Article 575 of the registered rules on June 13, 1985). The same legal principle applies to a case where an application for registration of change of the indication of a

A. The Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 1 omitted) constructed 22 buildings and 3 neighborhood living facilities on the land on which 1,167.3 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "land in this case") and (2) 41,946.9 square meters, etc. were constructed on the land in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 1 omitted) and 41,946.9 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the "O○ apartment"), but the building was completed by the time of completion of the construction, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 31, 197 under the name of the Seoul Metropolitan Government only for the building on December 31, 197 after completion of the construction. After completion of the cadastral adjustment on January 10, 1983, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the land in this case as co-ownership for the buyers, and on June 3, 1986, the competent registry registered the land in this case as the site of the sectional owner's co-ownership as the land in this case's co-ownership.

B. On October 26, 1989, Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government planned to relocate the co-ownership right of the land of this case corresponding to the part of the land of this case which was not constructed as an aggregate building on the ground of this case to the Seoul Special Metropolitan City for the public project, and to transfer it, the land of this case should first be excluded from the land which is the object of the site right of ○○ apartment, so the land of this case should first be excluded from the land which is the object of the site right of ○○ apartment, so the consent of 466 co-ownership among the co-ownership owners of the apartment of 932 households, which is the object of site right of this case, was changed by the procedure of amendment of the management rules, and entrusted the cancellation registration of this case to the Seoul District Court's South Branch of Seoul District Court's Seoul District Court'

C. The Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”) subsequently completed the registration of transfer on the ground of a consultation on public land acquisition with respect to each co-owned share of the re-appellant and the designated parties.

2. The court below determined as follows on the assertion of the re-appellant that the registration of the site ownership should be illegally cancelled on the land of this case owned by the owner of the above aggregate building, such as the re-appellant and the designated person, based on the facts of the above recognition. In other words, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the registration of the above co-ownership in the name of Seoul Special Metropolitan City was null and void on the record, and since the registration of the site ownership of this case's co-ownership of the land of this case, such as the re-appellant and the designated person was cancelled after the registration of the site ownership was cancelled, the above registration of the land of this case can not be registered ex officio on the ground that the above registration of the site ownership cannot be registered ex officio on the land of this case's land was cancelled on the register of the partitioned building, such as the re-appellant and the designated person, even after examining the record, since there is no evidence to recognize that the above registration of

3. A. Where an application is filed for recovery of a cancelled registration, a written consent or a certified copy of a trial in opposition thereto is to be attached to the application form if a third party with an interest in the registration exists (Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act). Here, a third party with an interest in the registration refers to a third party who is likely to incur damage as a result of the recovery of a registration cancelled in the form of a registration entered in the registration form. However, where a registration which is incompatible with the registration to be restored is made, unless it is cancelled first, a registration of recovery cannot be made unless it is cancelled first. Thus, such registration is merely subject to cancellation prior to the registration of recovery, and is not subject to separate approval by deeming that the registered titleholder is a third party with an interest (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da2329, 230, Jan. 26, 198

As determined by the court below, if the registration of a site ownership on the above ○○ apartment's registry was made in the name of Seoul Special Metropolitan City with respect to the co-ownership of the land in this case after the cancellation of the registration of a site ownership, the above site ownership registration, which is to be restored, cannot be compatible with the registration registration under the name of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and thus, it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below that it constitutes a third party with an interest in Seoul Special Metropolitan City. However, in order for the re-appellant and the designated parties to apply for the restoration of the site ownership registration on the land in this case, each co-ownership of the land in this case should be returned to the future of each sectional owner by seeking cancellation of the above co-ownership ownership transfer registration against the Seoul Special Metropolitan City. Thus, in this case where the registration of a site ownership was applied for the restoration registration without going through such procedures, a registrar

B. In addition, in a case where a right to a site is not a right to a site under the rules on the establishment of a right to a site, or where a right to a site is deemed not a right to a site due to the establishment of the rules on separate disposal or the abolition of the rules stipulated as a site under the rules, the registration of change of the indication of a right to a site shall be filed in a lump sum on behalf of all the relevant sectional owners or by subrogation of other sectional owners (see, e.g., Article 575 of the registered rules on June 13, 1985). This legal principle also applies to a case where a registration of change of the indication of a right to a site has been illegally cancelled, on the ground that the registration of change of the indication of the right to a site has been illegally cancelled, the re-appellant and the designated parties are not all the sectional owners of ○○ apartment, which are an aggregate building, and

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below that dismissed the application for recovery of the right to a site of this case's application is just and it is not possible to conclude that there is a misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged in the grounds for reappeal, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)