Validity and Requirements of Restoration Registration

The purpose of the restoration registration is to maintain the validity of the extinguished registration, and where the registration of restoration is made, the already extinguished registration shall be returned to the original state, and the priority order of the registration shall also be maintained as a result.

When an application for the restoration of cancelled registration is filed with a third party having interests in such registration, a written consent thereof or a certified copy of a judgment in opposition thereto shall be attached to the application.

Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

68Da1187 delivered on August 30, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 177Da177 delivered on September 24, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 68Da1505 delivered on September 24, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 8150 delivered on September 24, 196, Decision 75(2)703 of the Registration of Real Estate Act)

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation

Defendant

Seoul District Court Incheon District Court (66A743)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

In order to revoke the part made by making the plaintiff priority over the defendant among the list of successful bid price issuance in the case of applying for auction of real estate auction in the Seoul Civil and Criminal District Court Incheon 65ta160.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts that no dispute exists;

On October 30, 1964 with respect to the real estate recorded in the attached list (hereinafter referred to as this real estate as follows), the registration of establishment of creation of a mortgage over KRW 480,000,00 with respect to the real estate as the beneficiary of the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) was completed on October 30, 1964, pursuant to the Incheon Branch Court Incheon Branch Court Support, and thereafter on June 14, 1965, upon the Plaintiff’s application, the right to collateral security (right to collateral security) was revoked on June 15, 1965 as the above court’s receipt of the registration of establishment of a mortgage over KRW 35,00 on July 30, 1966, which was at least 355,000,00 for which the auction was in progress on July 30, 1966, before the Plaintiff’s establishment of a mortgage was completed on March 17, 1964.

2. Appropriateness of the Plaintiff’s claim

Examining whether registration of restoration in the name of the defendant was a registration that can oppose the plaintiff, the purpose of which is to maintain the validity of the registration of restoration was to return to the original state, and even if the registration becomes a registration of restoration, if the order of restoration was maintained, the registration already extinguished shall be restored to the original state. According to Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, if a third party with an interest in the registration applies for restoration of cancelled registration and if there is a third party with an interest in the registration, the consent or a certified copy of the court in opposition thereto shall be attached to the application. The fact that the registration of restoration in the name of the defendant was made at the time when the registration of restoration in the name of the defendant was made on the real estate constitutes a third party with an interest in the registration as to the real estate, and therefore, it should be deemed that the plaintiff constitutes a third party with an interest in the registration as set forth above, and therefore, according to Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act’s 2 (Application for Registration of Restoration), the fact that the defendant only attached a final judgment against the non-party at the time when the registration was made.

If so, the registration of recovery of the name of the defendant in the above judgment is invalid and it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff as the recovery of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage at the end of the week, and the part which is stated above as the creditor which takes precedence over the plaintiff in the issuance list of successful bid price, should be revoked.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the principal lawsuit is justified and accepted, and since the plaintiff's appeal against the original judgment with different conclusions is without merit, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 386, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judge Syle (Presiding Judge)