Effect of overlapping registration of preservation of ownership in the same name;

Unlike the case where a registration for preservation is made in duplicate with regard to the same real estate, unlike the case where a registration for preservation is made in duplicate in the name of the same person, the registration made first shall be valid, and the duplicate registration made later shall be null and void without examining whether it conforms to the substance

Articles 15 and 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Da2427 Decided December 26, 1978

Supreme Court Decision 78Da1648 delivered on January 16, 1979

Supreme Court Decision 80Da2027 Delivered on February 10, 1981

Supreme Court Decision 80Da3259 Delivered on August 25, 1981

Supreme Court Decision 81Da212 delivered on September 8, 1981

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 81Na1492 delivered on November 18, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the court below's decision, the court below found that the registration of ownership preservation has been made under the name of the defendant as of March 12, 1959, and that the registration of ownership preservation has been made under the name of the defendant again as of February 23, 1962 after the registration of ownership preservation was made under the name of the non-party on March 5, 1962 after the registration was made under the name of the defendant again as of February 23, 1962 on the ground of the non-party on December 31, 1955, and that the registration of ownership transfer has been made under the name of the plaintiff on February 28, 1966 under the name of the non-party on February 28, 1955. In case where the registration of ownership preservation overlaps under the name of the same person on the registration paper different from the registration paper for the same real estate, the registration already made under the name of the plaintiff and the non-party on the registration paper for the real estate shall be null and void without conformity with the substance.

The judgment of the court below is justifiable as not only driving away from the purport of the judgment of remanding this case by party members, but also is consistent with the previous precedents of the party members (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 77Da2427, Dec. 26, 1978). Since the judgment of the court below en banc Decision 77Da2427, Dec. 26, 1978, it is a case where the preservation registration is conducted in duplicate under the name of the same person because the registered titleholder is different with respect to the same real estate, the judgment of the court below is inconsistent with the above judgment of the party members. Since the judgment of the court below is contrary to the precedents of the Supreme Court, it cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Kim Jung-tae (Presiding Justice)