Whether the seller's first buyer's obligation to register the ownership ceases to exist if an agreement on the intermediate omission registration is reached.

Even if there exists an agreement to omit the intermediate registration, such agreement is only meaningful that the parties have no objection, even if the intermediate registration was omitted, or that the registration did not affect the validity of the registration, and it does not terminate the seller's obligation to register the ownership of the buyer (not the intermediate registration omitted).

Articles 186 and 568 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Kim Chang-gun

Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Financial Resources

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na1781 delivered on November 15, 1978

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal by the defendant among the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant's intervenor.

Each ground of appeal by the defendant and the defendant assistant intervenor is examined together.

All of the arguments are that, in the sale of the instant real estate, there was an agreement between the defendant (seller) and the non-party (seller) in the first instance trial, or between the above non-party (seller) and the defendant’s assistant buyer (contractor) on the omission of interim registration in the name of the above non-party, but the above non-party did not have any obligation to transfer ownership to the above non-party. Thus, the plaintiff’s claim for registration should be rejected.

However, even if there was an agreement to omit the intermediate registration, such an agreement would not be an objection between the parties even if the intermediate registration was omitted, and it would not affect the validity of the registration, and it would not mean that the defendant's obligation to register the transfer of ownership to the above Nonparty, the purchaser, is extinguished on the sole basis (not omitting the intermediate registration). Therefore, all arguments are groundless.

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)