1. Facts of recognition;

A. 00 (hereinafter referred to as '00') is about 00 - Seoul Central District Court 200 - 00 - 00 - 00 - Seoul Central District Court x 200 x 00 x 200 x x. x 200 x x the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of successful bid due to voluntary auction.

B. The defendant following the registration of 00 x 200 Seoul Central District Court x 200 x 00 x 200 x. x 00 x. x x 200 x x 200 the same court with respect to the registration of partial transfer of ownership due to sale x 1/2 x 00 x x x 00 x x x 200 x x x x 200 x x x x 1/20 x x x x 50 x 10 x

C. Plaintiff Kim 00, out of the instant 00 shares, 33.058/470.8 shares x 200 of the Seoul Central District Court x. The receipt x 200 by 00 x. The registration of ownership transfer caused by sale x the Plaintiff Kim 00 as to the portion 16.53/470.8 out of the 171/235.4 shares of the instant land x 200 x the Seoul Central District Court x x 00 x the receipt 00 x 200 x the registration of the right to claim partial transfer due to sale x the completion of the registration of the right to claim partial transfer due to a pre-sale.

D. Defendant 00, with respect to the instant 00 shares, was Seoul Central District Court 200 x... 】 The principal registration based on the provisional registration stated in paragraph (b) above (hereinafter referred to as “the principal registration of this case”) was completed by the receipt x 00 x (200 x x 200 x x 200 x x 200 x Ra0 x 00 x respectively.

E. Interested parties on the land of this case filed a lawsuit against Defendant 00 won to cancel the principal registration of this case on behalf of Defendant 00 on behalf of Defendant 00 (Seoul Central District Court 200 x Gohap00). The Seoul High Court participated in the lawsuit. The Seoul High Court 200 x 200 x. The Seoul High Court x 00 x Defendant 00 x Defendant 00 on the ground that the provisional registration of Defendant 00 on the share of this case was a provisional registration as a security, and that the principal registration of this case completed without undergoing liquidation procedures is null and void.”

Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na57192 (Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na57192). Defendant 00

Supreme Court Decision 208Da83028 Decided January 30, 2009 (Supreme Court Decision 2008Da83028)

On February 6, 2009, the Seoul High Court judgment became final and conclusive as it was. The principal registration of this case was filed.

The final judgment was cancelled on November 2, 2009.

(6) On the other hand, after the registration of this case was cancelled, ① Defendant 00 x 20 x 0 x 10 x 200 x 0 x 0 x 0 x 20 x x 20 x 0 x 160 x 16973 at the same court on January 27, 2012, ③ The registration of the seizure of shares was received under the same court on December 14, 2010 under the same court No. 60793, the registration of the transfer of ownership by the same court on September 15, 2011 under the same court No. 2010, the registration of the transfer of ownership by the same court on March 11, 2011 under the same court No. 20140, the registration of the transfer of ownership by the same court on March 27, 2013

Grounds for Recognition

The remaining Defendants: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

Where the ownership transfer registration of a third party, which was completed after a provisional registration, is cancelled ex officio by the registry official due to the principal registration of ownership transfer based on the provisional registration, and the principal registration based on the above provisional registration, is cancelled after the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of the third party, the registry official shall register the restoration ex officio: Provided, That where a registry official has an interest in the registration when the cancellation of ownership transfer registration is to be made ex officio, if there is a third party, the registration official shall register the restoration ex officio: Provided, That if there is no consent or a certified copy of the court decision which can oppose the registration, the third party with the interest in the above registration refers to a third party who is likely to suffer damage due to the cancellation of the registration entered in the form of the registration (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da2329, 230, Jan. 26, 1982). Accordingly, even if the cancellation registration should be made ex officio, if a third party has an interest in the registration, the person who seeks the cancellation registration and consent to the restoration procedure can be sought as a third party.

In light of the above legal principles, as the principal registration of this case was completed by Defendant 00, the registration of ownership transfer and the registration of Plaintiff 100 was cancelled ex officio. However, since the principal registration of this case was cancelled on the ground that the principal registration of this case was null and void, each of the above registrations in the plaintiffs' names was cancelled without any grounds. After the completion of each registration in the plaintiffs' names, the defendants, who completed each registration in the above paragraph (f) as to shares of 00 shares after the completion of each registration in the plaintiffs' names, are not only third parties having interests in the registration, but also are obligated under the substantive law to accept each registration in relation to the plaintiffs.

B. Determination of the defendants' assertion

1) As to Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

Defendant Republic of Korea is difficult to recognize the grounds for registration asserted by the plaintiffs, and the shares of this case 00 are presumed to be owned by 00 based on the presumption power of registration, and Defendant Republic of Korea is presumed to be a bona fide third person under the latter part of Article 11 of the Provisional Registration Security Act.The real estate registration itself is presumed to have been completed by legitimate grounds for registration, and even if the title holder of the registration claims that he/she acquired the name for any reason other than that recorded in the register, the presumption power of registration itself cannot be said to be broken even if it is not acknowledged. In such a case, even if it is not acknowledged, the presumption power of registration cannot be said to be broken. Thus, even if the registration is completed without the cause, if the registration is revoked without the cause, the validity of the real right is not affected, and the registered titleholder of the cancelled registration is presumed to be a legitimate right holder even before the restoration registration is completed, and thus, the reason for invalidation should be asserted and proved on the side that the registration becomes void without the cause (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da36595, Sept. 365, 19997).

In light of the above legal principles, as seen earlier, the facts that the registration of the plaintiffs' names was completed with respect to the plaintiffs' 00 shares in this case, so there is no evidence to prove that the registration of the plaintiffs' names is invalid.In addition, since the defendant Republic of Korea completed the seizure registration of the 00 shares in this case after the provisional registration of this case was cancelled on the ground that the principal registration based on the provisional registration of this case is null and void, it does not constitute a third party who trades the defendant Republic of Korea with the belief that the principal registration of this case is valid.Therefore, the above argument of the defendant Republic of Korea is rejected.

2) Determination on the assertion by Defendant 10 to 24

Although the above defendants asserted that it is difficult to recognize the grounds for registration and facts of registration under the plaintiffs' names, as seen in the above paragraph (1) above, as long as each registration under the plaintiffs' names has been completed as seen in the above paragraph (1), the grounds for invalidation should be proved in the way of disputing the validity of the registration. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge the facts of the above defendants' assertion, the above defendants'

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are justified, and all of them are accepted.

It is so decided as per Disposition.