(b) The case holding that it cannot be seen as contrary to the res judicata effect of a protocol of recognition and recognition;

B. In the case where: (a) the real estate in this case was cancelled from the non-party state to the non-party state through the non-party state, the plaintiff, and the defendant again through the non-party state; (b) the registration of ownership transfer was made in sequence from the non-party state to the non-party, etc.; and (c) the registration of ownership transfer was made again in the order of the defendant through the plaintiff; and (d) in the registration of ownership transfer which is the subsequent registration, or in the case where it is recognized that the registration of ownership transfer made in the future by the plaintiff was made by the same recognition protocol, the plaintiff's claim in this case on the ground that the registration made by the defendant was overlapped within the scope of the previous registration to be restored and the registration made in the name of the defendant was not denied the grounds for registration under the name of the defendant

The registration is a requirement for taking effect of a real right, and it is not a requirement for existence, and even if a registration on a real right is cancelled without any cause, there is no change in the validity of the real right. Accordingly, according to the facts established by the court below, the registration is cancelled ex officio by the order of the competent district court, but the order of the competent district court ordering ex officio cancellation is finalized after the cancellation of the registration of each of the above shares in the name of the plaintiff with respect to the non-party, the plaintiff, and the defendant 1's claim against the non-party and the plaintiff's claim against the non-party and the plaintiff's claim against the non-party and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 in this case and the final judgment against the country.

Therefore, the above registration of cancellation ex officio should be restored as it is registered without any cause. The plaintiff holds the right as a registered titleholder even before the completion of the restoration registration (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da742 delivered on July 28, 1970, Supreme Court Decision 79Da1447 delivered on October 10, 1979). Thus, the plaintiff is presumed to be a legitimate right holder as a final registered titleholder of the above registration of transfer of shares. Each of the above registrations is considered as a registration by mistake of a registered public official, and even if a lawsuit for cancellation of registration is filed by means of civil procedure, if the registration conforms to the substantive relationship, the judgment ordering cancellation will not be sentenced as a matter of course. Even if the registration is entered in Gap evidence 2, 4-1, 2, and 3 as evidence, the above share of the non-party as to the above real estate at the time of the above registration is purchased by the court below, and thus, it cannot be viewed as valid from the above defendant 229/1307.

In addition, according to the facts established by the court below, each of the above registrations on the instant real estate was cancelled without any ground, and then, prior to its recovery registration, the registration of the ownership transfer was made in sequence from the non-party State to the non-party, 4 and the plaintiff through the non-party et al., and based on this, the registration of the ownership transfer was made in succession in the order of Defendant 1 through the non-party State through the non-party State through the non-party et al., and based on this, the new registration of the ownership transfer was made by the non-party et al. through the plaintiff in Seoul Civil District Court 66A2459 in the case where the plaintiff was admitted the claim of the non-party 1 in Seoul Civil District Court 6A249. Thus, the above registration of the ownership transfer that has the same effect as the final judgment was made in accordance with the recognition and recognition protocol that the plaintiff's claim

However, if the facts are the same as above, in relation to the registration of transfer of ownership as the previous registration, or in the registration of transfer of ownership as the subsequent registration, or in the registration of transfer made in Defendant 1 by the same recognition and recognition protocol, the subsequent registration shall not be deemed null and void because it overlaps within the share scope of the previous registration to be restored. According to the records, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the registration of this case is based on the fact that the above defendant's registration is the previous registration to be restored and the subsequent registration is overlapped within the said share scope, and it is clear that it does not deny the ground for registration under the above defendant's name, and therefore, it does not conflict with the res

Nevertheless, the above share registration in the Plaintiff’s name was somewhat cancelled, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case was rejected on the grounds that it conflicts with the res judicata effect of the above recognition protocol. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the Plaintiff’s claim, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of registration and the scope of res judicata effect of the recognition protocol, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which points out each of the above points.

Ultimately, each of the above illegal acts constitutes grounds for reversal under Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)