Where a double ownership transfer registration in the name of the same person has been made, the preservation registration later and the validity of such registration based thereon (negative)

Where a registration of ownership preservation overlaps in the name of the same person due to a different registration form for real estate, the duplicate registration made later than time is null and void without being required to determine whether it conforms to the substantive right relationship. Therefore, a person who registers the ownership transfer later is not entitled to seek the cancellation of registration of ownership preservation first made by the person who registers the ownership transfer

Article 15 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da1648 Delivered on January 16, 1979

Plaintiff

Representative of the Republic of Korea and the Minister of Justice;

Egresponding, final net

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 80Na580 delivered on November 21, 1980

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Seoul Civil Procedure District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 by Defendant Litigation Performers are examined.

Based on the evidence adopted by the court below, the court below acknowledged that the registration of initial ownership was already made on March 12, 1959 in the name of the defendant with regard to the land entered in the order of the court below, and that the registration of initial ownership was again made on February 23, 1962 in the name of the defendant again as of February 23, 1962 on the ground that the registration of initial ownership was made on March 5, 1962 under the name of the non-party on the ground of the completion of repayment on December 31, 1955, and the registration of initial ownership was made on February 28, 196 in the name of the plaintiff under the name of the non-party on the ground of the non-party on the ground that the registration of initial ownership was made on the land entered in the order of the court below, and ordered the cancellation thereof to the defendant on the ground that the registration of initial ownership was invalid even if it was made first in the real relation. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the real right.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and remand the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Seo Il-sung (Presiding Justice)