(b) Where a person entitled to registration dies, the nominal owner of registration;

(c) Whether a true owner who has lost in a lawsuit claiming for cancellation of registration of ownership transfer can file a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration for the restoration of authentic title;

(b) Where a person entitled to make a registration dies, registration of recovery of loss shall be made in the name of an ancestor, not in the name of an heir;

C. The res judicata effect of a lawsuit seeking cancellation of ownership registration on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer is null and void on the ground that the registration is null and void on the ground that it does not affect only the right to claim cancellation registration of ownership, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, and thus, it does not affect the existence of ownership on the premise. Therefore, the party who has lost in the lawsuit claiming cancellation registration of ownership may seek confirmation of ownership or

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

On the first ground for appeal

If a registration of recovery due to destruction is entered in the register, it is reasonable to presume that it has been legally accepted and processed by a registry official (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da8736, Aug. 18, 1992; Supreme Court en banc Decision 92Da9340, Jul. 10, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 80Da3286, Nov. 24, 1981; Supreme Court Decision 80Da3286, Nov. 24, 1981). One of the co-owners is entitled to apply for registration of recovery in the name of all co-owners, and if the person entitled to registration dies, registration of recovery shall be completed in the name of the decedent, not in the name of the heir. Thus, even if the deceased non-party 1 had already died at the time of the application for registration of recovery of this case, the presumption of the registration of this case cannot be said to have been completed.

In the above purport, the court below is just in holding that the registration of the recovery of loss of the real estate of this case is presumed to have been completed lawfully, and that the 1/4 share of the real estate of this case is owned by the plaintiff who is the sole heir of the deceased non-party 1, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of registration in the name of the deceased and the presumption of the effect

In addition, since the theory of lawsuit was born on January 18, 1941 by Nonparty 2, one of the co-owners of the registration of recovery of this case, Nonparty 2, who was born on November 18, 194, was unable to share the real estate of this case with the deceased non-party 1 who died on November 5, 1936 before his birth, and thus, the presumption of presumption of the registration of recovery of this case, which was completed by the above two persons, was broken. However, if the above non-party 2 was a co-owner of the real estate of this case as the deceased non-party 2, who was the above co-owner of the registration of recovery of this case, and the registration of inheritance was destroyed by the above non-party 2 and the above deceased non-party 1 as co-owner, the above non-party 2 and the above deceased non-party 1 cannot be deemed to have broken the presumption of the registration of recovery of this case. Accordingly, even if the judgment of the court below did not

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the second ground for appeal

The res judicata effect of a final and conclusive judgment only affects the conclusion of the judgment on the existence of a legal relationship alleged as a subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of a legal relationship as a premise, and thus the res judicata effect of a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of a registration on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer is null and void does not affect only the right to claim the cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and it does not affect the existence of ownership as a premise. Thus, the party who lost the lawsuit claiming the cancellation of ownership transfer registration can seek the confirmation of ownership or file a lawsuit seeking the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true owner's name (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu26482 delivered on December 21, 1990; Supreme Court en banc Decision 89Meu12398 delivered on November 27, 1990). In this regard, the court below was just in rejecting the defendant's argument that the plaintiff's lawsuit in this case conflicts with the res judicata effect, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the nature or the res judicata effect.

There is no reason for this issue.

On the third ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as to the defendant's defense that the real estate of this case was originally owned by the above non-party 3, but the defendant was donated by the above non-party 3, or the defendant occupied the real estate from January 1, 1960 to acquired prescription on January 1, 1980, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant was effective in accordance with the substantive relations, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the real estate of this case was originally owned by the non-party 3 or received the real estate of this case from the above non-party 3, and there is no other evidence to prove the above facts, and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant's assertion that the real estate of this case was originally owned by the non-party 3, and even if the defendant did so and did so, the defendant did not have a sole possession of the real estate of this case while attending the school in Seoul, and there is no evidence to find otherwise that the defendant occupied the real estate of this case, and there is no other evidence to find any error in the court's reasoning.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)