After the registration officer completes a group of registrations, he/she shall not seek cancellation by an objection except in cases falling under subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 55 of this Act.

After the registration officer completes a group of registrations, he/she shall not seek the cancellation by an objection except in cases falling under subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 55 of this Act.

Article 178 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Notice of July 22, 1964, 63G63 Order Aug. 23, 1968, 68Ma823 Order

Busan City

Busan District Court Decision 67Ra164 delivered on October 30, 1968

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds for reappeal are determined.

According to the records of this case, this case filed an objection against the non-party who filed an appeal for the registration of transfer of ownership due to the completion of repayment on November 28, 1964 by the Busan District Court registry of Busan District Court (15227, Jan. 21, 1959) against the non-party who filed an appeal for the provisional disposition prohibiting disposal of the said real estate, and filed an application with the above court for the provisional disposition prohibiting disposal of the said real estate, and completed the registration of provisional disposition prohibiting disposal as of March 26, 1965 by the above registry office (5126). After which the above registry office's public official filed an application for the cancellation of the transfer registration without attaching the consent document of the third party who is interested in the registration, or a copy of the judgment on behalf of the above registry office, the registration of transfer of the above non-party's name was cancelled, which is so cancelled.

However, except for the cases of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, the term "it is not possible to claim the cancellation of the registration by the method of an objection under Article 178 of the same Act after the registration public official completed the registration procedure once," which is the case of this Court (see Supreme Court Order 63Da63, Jul. 22, 1964; Supreme Court Order 67Ma823, Aug. 23, 1968; 67Ma823, respectively). The reason for the objection is not the reason under Article 55 subparagraph 1 or 2 of the same Act, but the reason under subparagraph 8 of the same Article is clear by the ground for the above application. Thus, this does not constitute a legitimate ground for objection against the disposition of the registration public official."

Therefore, although the reasoning of the original decision is the same, the original decision that was the same as that of the original decision shall be maintained by the first instance court that dismissed the objection, and the appeal shall be dismissed, and the original decision that was based on the conclusion shall be justified and it shall not be erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles like the theory

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Hongnam-gu (Presiding Judge)