In the ex officio procedure of registration, the time when the registrar shall make a decision on the objection statement;

Where any person states an objection to the cancellation of registration in the ex officio procedure under Articles 175 through 177 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, the registrar shall immediately make a decision on the objection and may cancel the registration, and it shall not be required to make a decision on the objection after the lapse of the period in which the objection as determined at the time of notification of cancellation was made.

Articles 175 through 177 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Applicant

Busan District Court Order 93Ra59 dated June 9, 1993

The reappeal is dismissed.

1. Judgment on the first ground for reappeal by the applicant

The court below held that even if a provisional registration for preserving a claim for transfer of ownership has been made falsely for the purpose of evading compulsory execution as alleged by the applicant, if the principal registration based on such provisional registration has been made, if the principal registration based on such provisional registration has been made, the registry official, who is not only the formal examination right, shall cancel the registration of provisional seizure in this case, which was made by the applicant, ex officio, after the provisional registration was made by entry in the register. The judgment of the court below is just (see Supreme Court Order 81Ma140, Oct. 6, 1981; Supreme Court Order 81Ma140, Oct. 6, 1981).

2. Judgment on the second ground for reappeal

In the ex officio procedure under Articles 175 through 177 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, when there is a person who has made an objection to the cancellation of registration, the registrar shall immediately make a decision on the objection and may cancel the registration, and it shall not be required to make a decision on the objection after the period of the objection stated at the time of notification of cancellation, such as the theory of lawsuit, expires. In addition, even if the registrar dismisses the objection and cancels the registration, the purport that there was a person who made a statement of objection shall not be additionally stated.

Therefore, in the case of this case, the court below's order holding that the provisional seizure registration in the name of the applicant was not erroneous in the procedure of registration without stating the purport that the applicant, who made a provisional seizure registration after the provisional registration was made, made a statement of objection by April 4, 1993, but the applicant stated an objection on April 1, 199, and the applicant did not state that he made a statement of objection on that date, and the applicant did not state that there was a person who made a statement of objection on that date.

3. Therefore, the re-appeal by the applicant is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon-young (Presiding Justice)