(a) The effect of registration of preservation of ownership already made, where a registration of preservation of ownership has been made in duplicate on the same real estate by any different person under whose name the registered titleholder

(b) Possession of farmland indirectly by a person who occupies a tenant on the basis of an invalid tenant relationship under the Farmland Reform Act and possession of real estate prescriptive acquisition.

A. Where a registration of preservation of ownership has been made in duplicate with respect to the same real estate, the registration of preservation of ownership, which was made first, shall be null and void even if it was made by the purchaser of such real estate, unless the registration of preservation was invalidated by the purchaser of such real estate.

B. Even if giving a lawsuit for farmland is null and void under the Farmland Reform Act, the possession itself in the acquisition of prescription by the above indirect possessor cannot be denied as long as the author indirectly occupies the land as the possessor and is in the position to claim the return of the farmland against him/her.

A. Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 15 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2961, 87Da453 Decided November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 178) (Gong1991, 178) decided November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 195) 89Meu2613 Decided December 26, 1990 (Gong1991, 607)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and two others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na10215 delivered on July 3, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. Where a registration of preservation of ownership has been made in duplicate with regard to the same real estate, the registration of preservation of ownership, which was made first, shall be null and void even if it was made by the purchaser of the real estate (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2961, 87Da453, Nov. 27, 1990).

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and it is nothing more than an error in the judgment of the court below.

2. In its reasoning, the judgment of the court below recognized the fact that the plaintiff acquired the real estate as of May 16, 1986 by prescription, but the registration was not completed, the non-party 1 sold the real estate as of July 27, 198, to the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 by representing the representative of the defendant defendant 1 and the defendant 2, and completed each registration on September 24, 1989, and confirmed that the registration was completed on August 31, 1989 and November 19 of this year, the above non-party 1's disposal of the above non-party 1's disposal was effective, and determined that the obligation of the defendant clan to transfer the ownership of each of the above real estate was not fulfilled. The judgment of the court below did not err in the misapprehension of the proviso of Article 133 of the Civil Act since the exclusive acquisition of the real estate as of May 16, 198 and the registration was not completed.

The grounds of appeal by the attorney from among the defendant type are examined.

On May 16, 1966, the judgment of the court below determined that the plaintiff acquired the prescription by indirectly confirming that the plaintiff occupied the real estate in this case from the deceased non-party 2 for twenty (20) years indirectly, such as purchasing the real estate from the deceased non-party 2 and filing a lawsuit against the non-party 3, etc. with his intention to own it. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is justified and there is no error in the misunderstanding of legal principles, violation of the rules of evidence, or the order of reasoning as pointed out. Even if the plaintiff's filing a lawsuit against the non-party, etc., which is farmland, is null and void under the Farmland Reform Act, the plaintiff's possession in the prescription acquisition cannot be denied as long as the plaintiff occupied the non-party indirectly and indirectly as the plaintiff occupied it as the owner of the land and the possessor is presumed to have occupied the land in a position to claim the return of the farmland to the non-party, and the court below determined that the possessor was in a peace and public performance by Article 197 of the Civil Act.

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

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)