Where a registration which was invalidated later due to the extinguishment of a substantive relationship becomes a new registration of validity.

Where a valid registration accompanied by the original substantive relationship is invalidated later due to the extinguishment of the substantive relationship, but another substantive relationship, such as the former substantive relationship, occurs thereafter, it shall be effective by a registration to publicly announce the latter from the time of occurrence unless there is any special reason.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 63Da583 delivered on October 10, 1963

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 67Na407 delivered on November 2, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 67Na407 delivered on November 2, 1967

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The first ground for appeal by the Defendant is justified.

The plaintiff is seeking to order the defendant who is the possessor of the building in accordance with the ownership of the building. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff has no standing to sue is groundless.

health class, as shown in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, and 5 of this title;

Even if a valid registration accompanied by a substantive relationship becomes null and void later due to the extinguishment of a substantive relationship, if another substantive relationship, such as a former substantive relationship, occurs later, it shall be effective as a registration disclosing the latter substantive relationship from the time of occurrence unless there is any special reason.

(3) The court below's decision on October 10, 1963 and 63Da5583 is justified in holding that the above non-party 2 did not have any error in law since the plaintiff's registration of transfer of ownership was cancelled on April 26, 1965, and the above non-party 2 did not have any error in law since the plaintiff's registration of transfer of ownership could not be viewed as invalid. The court below's decision on February 1, 1967 as the representative of the above non-party 1 and the non-party 4 again purchased the building as the price of the successful bid, and the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 sold it again to the plaintiff on April 16, 1963. The court below's decision on the non-party 4 and the plaintiff's above non-party 2 did not have any error in the law as it did not affect the plaintiff's right by using the above non-party 1's registration of transfer of ownership as evidence.

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 judges.

Supreme Court Judge Kimchig (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court of Korea