The validity of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of a purchaser, which has been made on a parcel number different from the purchased land by mistake (=negative)

Where a part of a parcel of land was sold and then divided for the registration of ownership transfer was conducted, but the new parcel number (number 1 omitted) and the land register (448 square meters) of the purchase portion were erroneously different, and where the registration of ownership transfer was completed with a sale certificate stating another parcel number (number 2 omitted, forest land 576 square meters) due to mistake, the registration of ownership transfer in the buyer's name that has been made for the land of another parcel of land is invalid because there is no error or error in the indication of lot number on the register of the purchase land. In such cases, there is no reason to appeal that the registration of ownership transfer in the buyer's name will only correct the lot number indication.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 41 and 100 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 4 of the Cadastral Act

Plaintiff

Defendant-Appellee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Suwon District Court Decision 82Na253 delivered on May 11, 1983

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff's lot number of non-party 1 was 4,595 square meters of land adjoining to non-party 1, and approximately 10 square meters of land and buildings above 110 square meters of land are sold to non-party 2, and the above land is divided into 448 square meters of forests and fields ( Address 3 omitted) 393 and 576 square meters of forest land ( Address 1 omitted) for the purpose of the registration of ownership transfer to non-party 1, the court below's decision that the above part sold to the former is 90 square meters of forest and field 47 square meters of land and 97 square meters of land is not appropriate for the registration of ownership transfer to non-party 1. The court below's decision that the non-party 2's decision that the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's decision that the registration of ownership transfer should be omitted due to the plaintiff's error in the legal reasoning that the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's decision should be omitted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Jong-young (Presiding Justice)