Whether a person who has the right to claim ownership transfer registration due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription can seek cancellation of the registration in the name of a third party on behalf of the owner at the time of the completion of the acquisition by prescription if the registration of ownership transfer made in the name of a third party becomes void

The third party who acquired the ownership of the real estate by completing the registration of ownership transfer before the completion of the acquisition by prescription is not entitled to assert the acquisition by prescription, but this is premised on the legitimacy and validity of the registration in the name of the third party. If the registration in the name of the third party is the registration of invalidation of cause, the person entitled to claim the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription can seek the cancellation of the registration of invalidation of cause made in the name of the third party by subrogation of the above owner, with the right to claim the registration

Articles 186, 245, and 404 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Balwhos

Doctrine:

Msan District Court Decision 89Na2152 delivered on August 10, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendant (Appointed Party).

1. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 6.

A third party who has acquired the ownership of the real estate by completing the registration of ownership transfer before the completion of the registration due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription may not assert the acquisition by prescription. However, this is based on the premise that the registration in the name of the third party is lawful and valid. If the registration in the name of the third party is completed for the invalidation of the cause, a person who has the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription can seek the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the third party by subrogation of the above owner (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2561, Jan. 31, 1989).

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the plaintiff has the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership on the real estate of this case on March 16, 1981, on the part of the designated owner, who is the owner at the time of this time, and the plaintiff can claim the cancellation of the registration of this case on behalf of the defendant, since the above river and the defendant have completed the transfer registration of ownership on the real estate under the name of the defendant by pretending to trade as stated in the judgment of the court below, and the plaintiff is entitled to claim the cancellation of the registration of this case on behalf of the defendant in lieu of the above river. There is no misapprehension of the legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the precedents pointing out the theory

2. We examine the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 through 5.

Upon examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff occupied the real estate of this case as the intention of ownership and the fact that the plaintiff acquired the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Appointor and between the defendant, and rejected the donation of the defendant's assertion on the ground that macroscopic evidence cannot be trusted and no other evidence exists, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation as to the theory of lawsuit, violation of the rules of evidence, or error of judgment. The argument is without merit.

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

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)