Whether or not the actual building and the display building on the registry are identical to the actual building, and the validity of preservation registration

If it is substantially impossible to recognize the identity or similarity between the actual building and the indication building on the preservation register of the building, as the difference is serious in the time of the construction of the building, the structure, size, location number, etc. of each part of the building, and the actual state of the indication on the registration is considerably different, the registration shall be null and void, except where the registration of correction is permitted as there is no interested party in other preservation registration or registration form as to the building.

Articles 131 and 72 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da2188 Delivered on April 22, 1975

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

Defendant 1 and three others

The Defendants’ Intervenor, the Defendants’ Intervenor, and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Maximum leap

Seoul High Court Decision 76Na2710 decided Feb. 21, 1978

1. The part of the lower judgment regarding the building indicated in the annexed Table 3 List among the original judgment shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

2. All appeals against the part of the building indicated in the annexed Table 2 in the original judgment among the original judgment is dismissed. The costs of appeal regarding the dismissal of the appeal are assessed against the Defendants’ assistant intervenor and the remainder, respectively.

1. The defendants and the defendants' assistant intervenor's attorney's ground of appeal No. 1 is examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that the building entered in the public register among the buildings entered in the third list of the original judgment was registered under the name of the non-party, and the part above other than the above public register among the existing buildings such as the buildings entered in the third list of the above public register was consistent with the building indicated in the above public register as a single building, and as to this, the Seoul Civil District Court 73T418, which was marked as the above public register, completed the registration of ownership transfer and entered in the above public register on the ground of the successful bid permission decision of the plaintiff bank, and that the above non-party entered in the above public register on June 1, 1965 and entered in the above public register in the house register of the non-party in the above non-party's name and entered the above public register in the third list of the above non-party's building in the second list of the above non-party's 13 (No. 1) and the above non-party's request for registration of ownership preservation of the above public register of the non-party 27.

If it is difficult to recognize that there is a little difference between the existing 5th appraisal report and the existing 3th appraisal report of the building and the existing 4th appraisal report of the building because the existing 5th appraisal report had an effect on the registration number of the above 4th appraisal report and the existing 5th appraisal report of the building, the remaining 1st appraisal report of the 1st appraisal report and the existing 4th appraisal report of the building should be considered as valid as registration of the building even if there is a little difference between the existing 5th appraisal report and the existing 4th appraisal report of the building and the actual 5th appraisal report of the 1st appraisal report and the existing 4th appraisal report of the building, and the remaining 1st appraisal report of the 5th appraisal report which had no effect on the registration number of the above 4th appraisal report and the existing 3th appraisal report of the building are different from the existing 5th appraisal report of the building (see Supreme Court Decision 74Da2188 delivered on April 22, 197).

2. Next, the final appeal against the part on the building indicated in the 2th list among the original judgment is examined. The Defendants, their auxiliary intervenors, and their legal representatives did not submit the appellate brief concerning the above part of the original judgment within the prescribed period (in the case of the grounds of final appeal of April 24, 1978 by the above legal representative, there is no indication in the grounds of final appeal as to the above part), and there is no indication in the grounds of final appeal, and they do not dismiss all the final appeal as to this part under Article 399

3. Therefore, among the original judgment, the part concerning the building indicated in the third list of the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court which is the original judgment for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The appeal on the part concerning the building indicated in the second list of the judgment is all dismissed and the costs of appeal on this part are assessed against the defendants' assistant intervenor and the remainder are assessed against the defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)