(a) A case not falling under an interested party on a registration which is entitled to file an objection under Article 178 of the Registration of Real Estate Act;

(b) Trial ordering conditional statement, and suspension of compulsory execution;

1. Grounds for not being accompanied by a written consent from the third parties interested in the registration application under Article 171 of the Registration of Real Estate Act are related to the interests of the third parties. Thus, the person liable for the registration of cancellation cannot be viewed as an interested party entitled to file an objection under Article 178 of the said Act for the above reasons.

2. A judgment ordering conditional statement of intention takes effect as stated by the executor when the execution clause is granted due to fulfillment of the condition, and there is no real procedure of compulsory execution in which the executing agency is involved, so it is impossible to suspend compulsory execution. Therefore, the registrar may wear the equipment by accepting the application for registration without seeking a decision of suspension of compulsory execution.

Articles 171 and 178 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Kim Jae-chul

Seoul Central District Court Order 7Ra240 Dated November 26, 1977

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of re-appellant's re-appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of the re-appellant's attorney's re-appeal ground).

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, in the case No. 75Na228 of the Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court 75Na228) where non-applicant 1 was the defendant, the court below held that the non-applicant 20,000 won was deposited until September 15, 1976 for non-applicant 1, and the non-applicant 1 violated the above execution clause, and the non-applicant 1 was granted the above execution clause and applied for cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-applicant 1, and the non-applicant 1 did not apply for cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the above non-applicant 7's name, and the non-applicant 1 is not a third party with interest in the above real estate at the time of application for cancellation registration, and the non-applicant 1 is not a party with interest in the above non-applicant 8's application for registration, and thus, the non-applicant 1 is not a party with interest in the above non-applicant 1's written consent or a copy of the above judgment.

In addition, according to the order of the court below and records, the court below's decision and records revealed that the re-appellant raised an objection against the grant of execution clause as above and rendered a decision of suspension of compulsory execution under the executory protocol as above until the above decision was made by the Seoul Civil & Security District Court on September 26, 1977, but the court below did not render a judgment as to the re-appellant's assertion that the registration officer accepted the application for cancellation registration of non-applicant 1 and the registered

However, since a judgment ordering a conditional statement like the above protocol of compromise takes effect the same effect as the statement of an executor when the execution clause was granted as the condition has been fulfilled, there is no practical compulsory execution procedure involved in the enforcement agency, and therefore there is no room to acknowledge the suspension of compulsory execution. Thus, it is unreasonable that a registrar can accept an application for registration and enter the registration without difficulty even if the decision to suspend compulsory execution was rendered as above by the re-appellant. Therefore, the above argument of the re-appellant is rejected. Therefore, since the court below's failure to make a decision on the above argument does not constitute an illegal cause that may affect the original judgment, and there is no ground to deny the judgment that there is an error of law in the omission of judgment that could affect the result of the original judgment.

All arguments are without merit, and the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kang Jae-hee (Presiding Justice)