In case where the registration of the mid-term flag is made by a forged import clearance completion certificate, whether the cancellation of the mid-term registration is legitimate;

The cancellation of the registration of the mid-term machine may be cancelled only when the registered mid-term machine has been destroyed or dismantled, or the use thereof has been terminated, and the registration of the mid-term machine has ceased to be effective as the mid-term machine, and the registration of the mid-term machine shall not be cancelled as a result, on the ground that there was a defect in the document attached at the time of application for registration.

Articles 5 and 6 of the Mid-Term Management Act, Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Mid-Term Management Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Lee Sung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 76Gu21 delivered on January 26, 1978

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney.

According to Article 3 of the mid-term Management Act and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the Enforcement Decree of the Act, the court below determined that the registration of the mid-term term shall be attached to the application for registration of the mid-term term, and that the mid-term term shall be legally imported or manufactured, and that the mid-term term shall be subject to registration. In this case, the mid-term term registration is duly imported or manufactured, and that the mid-term term registration was made with a forged import clearance completion certificate, which is imported as the intermediate term. Therefore, this lack of the ground for registration of the mid-term term registration, which is not registered. Therefore, regardless of the grounds for cancellation of registration prescribed in Article 5 of the mid-term Management Act, the registration authority may cancel the registration ex officio, and the cancellation of the mid-term term registration by the defendant shall be legitimate

However, the mid-term Management Act provides that the registration authority may cancel the mid-term registration when the mid-term period registered in Article 5 has been destroyed or dismantled, or when the use thereof has ceased to exist, or when the mid-term registration cannot be performed, the registration authority may cancel the mid-term registration by its owner's application or ex officio. In this case, the registration authority may cancel the mid-term registration only when the mid-term registration has ceased to have the validity of the mid-term registration. As such, there is a defect in the document attached at the time of the application for registration, and the registration of the mid-term registration has been cancelled, and the registration of the mid-term registration has been cancelled, and there is no ground to deprive the owner or mortgagee of the rights of the mid-term registration (Article 6 of the Act).

However, according to Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the mid-term Management Act, when the mid-term registration authority finds any error or omission in the registration after the registration under Articles 3 and 4 of the Act (new registration and vindication registration) was made, it shall make the registration by additional statement and notify the title holder of that purport. Thus, in this case, if there is any error permitted by a forged document, it shall be stated additionally in this article and it shall be given to the title holder by giving notice to the title holder.

Therefore, the court below determined that the defendant's cancellation of the registration of this case is legitimate, and ultimately, it affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on the grounds for cancellation of registration under the Mid-Term Management Act. Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices Yu Tae-hun (Presiding Justice)