(a) Whether a case falls under "where a change of the indication of a registered titleholder is made at the request of a person having no identity with the registered titleholder";

(b) In the case of paragraph (a) above, the method of correcting wrong registrations;

A. Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that "where the registration is not to be made" means cases where it is obvious that an application for registration cannot be permitted by law in light of its purport itself, and thus, the reason that the registration of change of indication was made on the ground of false or invalid documents at the request of a person who is not identical with the registered titleholder constitutes "when a document necessary for the application is not attached" under Article 5 subparagraph 8 of the Registration of Real Estate Act,

B. In the case of paragraph (a) above, the original registered titleholder is bound to seek cancellation of the registration of change against the new registered titleholder.

(a) Subparagraph 2 and 8 of Article 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act (Article 214 of the Civil Act), Article 31 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Institution of Lawsuit]

A. Supreme Court Order 84Ma99 dated Apr. 6, 1984 (Gong1984,1014) dated Feb. 24, 1988 (Gong1988,592) dated Nov. 30, 1989 (Gong1990,448) (Gong110) dated Nov. 30, 1989

[Defendant-Appellant] Kancheon-Mon-Mon-Jon-Sol, Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant

Suwon District Court Order 92Ra88 dated September 27, 1993

The reappeal is dismissed.

As to the ground of reappeal

The Re-Appellant's assertion is that the Re-Appellant's change of the name of the Re-Appellant, who is the registered titleholder, was changed to the Re-Appellant's name of the Re-Appellant's name of the Re-Appellant's name to the Re-Appellant's name of the Re-Appellant's name after the C. S. C. and the Re-Appellant's change to the Re-Appellant's name was made based on the documents of false or invalid registration at the above sub-appellant's application without identity with the Re-Appellant's relatives' clan. This constitutes Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and the "when the case is not registered" as stipulated in the above provision refers to cases where it is obvious that the registration application cannot be permitted by law in light of its purport (see Supreme Court Order 89Ma645, Nov. 30, 198; 200Da39167, Nov. 13, 199).

Therefore, the decision of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no reason to discuss it, since there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)