In case where a claim for cancellation of ownership transfer based on a provisional registration becomes final and conclusive against the losing party, whether the claim for cancellation of the provisional registration is legitimate

Since a provisional registration and a principal registration based on it are independent registrations respectively, there is a benefit to seek cancellation by asserting that provisional registration is null and void, even if the part of a claim for cancellation of the principal registration becomes final and conclusive.

Article 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul District Court Decision 72Gahap42 delivered on July 1, 198

Supreme Court Decision 74Da223 delivered on April 9, 1974

1. Revocation of the original judgment;

2. The defendant, on July 28, 1970, received a registration office of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul District District Court from the Seoul District Court on July 28, 1970 for the registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer registration and preservation of ownership transfer registration due to the purchase reservation on the 22th of the same month, and the above registration office No. 57456 on July 28, 1970 for the real estate in the same list (2) as the above registration office No. 57456 on July 28, 1970 for the plaintiff.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The plaintiff sought a judgment to the same effect as the Disposition Nos. 2 and 3.

The plaintiff sought a judgment as ordered by the court.

1. As a part of this safety claim, the plaintiff asserted that the provisional registration and the principal registration of transfer of ownership based on the provisional registration, such as the entry in the order of the defendant's name, which have been completed with respect to the real estate in the attached list (1), (2), are all null and void, and lost at the first instance trial. As to the part of the claim for cancellation of the principal registration, the part of the claim becomes final and conclusive due to the failure to file an appeal, and that the principal registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate in this case is null and void, and therefore, it cannot be claimed that only the above principal registration is left behind in the name of the defendant, and that the above provisional registration and the principal registration should be dismissed as against the real estate in this case are unlawful without any interest in the claim. Thus, according to the records of this case, even if the plaintiff asserted that the provisional registration concerning the real estate in this case and the principal registration of transfer of ownership based on this case are null and void, and thus, the part of the claim for cancellation of the provisional registration becomes void only in this case's judgment against the losing.

2. To make decisions on the merits;

In full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (each provisional registration right), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (each provisional registration right), part of the record verification results of the trial before remanding to the testimony of the non-party No. 1 and the whole purport of the parties' arguments without dispute over the establishment, the real estate of this case is originally owned by the plaintiff and is provided as security for financing the real estate of this case upon the plaintiff No. 1's request by the non-party No. 2, who is the plaintiff's wife, to the non-party No. 1 to the non-party No. 1 for financing, and it was issued with the plaintiff No. 9's seal impression No. 1 for the same person's name on July 21, 1970, which was signed by the non-party No. 3 on behalf of the defendant No. 1 for sale and purchase by the non-party No. 2, the plaintiff's signature No. 2 and the defendant No. 4 were the plaintiff's consent.

At the time of the transaction in this case, Nonparty 2, as the plaintiff's wife, had the right to the real estate in this case, the plaintiff's seal impression and the certificate of seal impression. As seen above, Nonparty 3, the defendant's agent, as the above, was provided as security for the above loan obligation, and thus, the plaintiff is responsible for the legal act in this case as the plaintiff's legitimate agent, and even if the above expression agent defense is without merit, the plaintiff's non-party 2's act of non-party 3's non-party 2's consent to the legal act in this case as of February 1971. Thus, in order to establish a legal act beyond his authority, the plaintiff is not responsible for the above legal act in this case's non-party 5's non-party 2's non-party representative's non-party 4's signature and seal affixed to the defendant's non-party 2's signature and seal affixed to this case's non-party 4's signature and seal affixed to this case's non-party 2's testimony.

Thus, the pre-contract for sale and purchase of the real estate of this case, which was concluded on July 22, 1970, shall be deemed null and void, and since the above provisional registration made on the ground thereof shall also be deemed null and void without any cause, the defendant is obligated to cancel the above provisional registration. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case shall be justified, and shall be accepted. Since the original judgment which rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground of this conclusion is unfair, the original judgment which rejected the plaintiff's claim is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Park Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)