[경정등기각하결정에대한이의][집31(4)민,47;공1983.10.15.(714),1402]
Where the lot number indication on the existing register becomes different from the lot number indication on the land cadastre due to the combination and subdivision of land, a copy of the registration of correction
Where there is an error or omission in part of the previous registration from the beginning to the original registration, and the registration is not in conformity with the substantive relations, the registration procedure is allowed as a way to correct it. Therefore, where the number indication on the existing register concerning the land becomes different from the lot number indication on the land cadastre and cadastral map due to the combination and subdivision of land after the lawful registration is completed, it shall not be applicable to the case of revising the existing registration.
Subparagraph 2 of Article 55 and Article 74 of the Registration of Real Estate Act
Re-appellant
Jeonju District Court Order 82Ra55 dated April 19, 1983
The reappeal is dismissed.
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
According to the reasoning of the order of the court below and the record, the fact that the re-appellant applied for registration of correction to the registry official and rejected is that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in two times on September 21, 1978 and on June 5, 1978, the order of priority 1,322 square meters prior to the previous North Korea ( Address 1 omitted) was completed in the non-party, and then the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the non-party's order 1,322 square meters prior to the previous North Korea ( Address 2 omitted) and the previous land was divided into 725 square meters prior to the cadastral map and land cadastre ( Address 2 omitted) and was divided into 2,047 square meters prior to the previous land and again divided into 725 square meters prior to the previous 1,322 square meters prior to the previous 1978 on July 28, 1978, and thus, it is clear that the registration was omitted in the cadastral map and the previous 322 square meters omitted.
However, the court below's order that maintained the disposition of the registry official who did not accept the application for the re-appellant's correction on the same ground is just, and it cannot be said that there were any errors such as incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of legal principles, in the case of this case, since the lot number indication on the register of land was not registered from the original date to the original date, but there was a combination and subdivision of land as alleged by the re-appellant after a lawful registration was completed. Accordingly, the case where the lot number indication on the existing register on the land became different from the lot number indication on the land cadastre and cadastral map due to the fact that there was a difference in the lot number indication on the land as alleged by the re-appellant, it is not a case where the previous registration is corrected.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)