According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the above owner of the land of this case as stated in the Attachment Nos. 1 through 5 attached to the judgment of the court below was registered on June 26, 1978, 23, and the above list Nos. 1, 2 and 5 were recorded on November 25 of the same year, and the ownership transfer registration was made on November 28 of the above list No. 3 and the above non-party No. 2 had been made on the land of this case as stated in the above list No. 1, 3 and 4 under the name of the non-party No. 1, 3 and the above non-party No. 2. The defendant No. 1 and the above non-party No. 1 were recorded on May 8, 1953 as to the land of this case including the above list No. 1, 1978. The defendant No. 981 and the defendant No. 981 were found to be invalid on the ground that it was not inconsistent with the above judgment below's Opinion No. 981.

However, since the registration of ownership transfer is valid in accordance with the actual rights of the above real estate even if there is a difference between the fact and the fact, even if such registration is invalid because it is inconsistent with the actual rights of the above real estate, it shall be deemed valid from that time if there is an actual rights of the real estate. Therefore, even if the registration of ownership transfer due to recovery is invalid in accordance with the actual rights of the real estate, if it is not consistent with the actual rights of the real estate, it shall be deemed valid from that time. Therefore, if the registration of ownership transfer due to recovery is made based on the real rights of the above real estate and no third party exists until the registration is completed in accordance with the actual rights of the real estate, it shall be deemed that the remaining registration is valid even if the subsequent registration is made based on the restoration registration of the original rights of the above real estate, and if it is not consistent with the above legal rights of the defendants, it shall be deemed that the period of acquisition of ownership transfer from each of the above real rights of the above third parties to that of the expiration of the acquisition period, as alleged by the defendants's expiration of acquisition period from 2 to that of the above real rights is valid.

Therefore, the court below should examine the defendants' assertion on the prescriptive acquisition in order to determine the validity of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendants, and further whether the registration of preservation of ownership and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the plaintiff 1 are valid. The court below did not reach this conclusion and did not exhaust all necessary deliberations by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the registration of real estate or committed unlawful act of lack of reason, since the court below did not examine the defendants' assertion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Jeong Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)