Whether an application for registration to correct the indication of a registered titleholder falls under Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, which is a ground for ex officio revocation under Article 175 of the same Act.

Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, which is a ground for ex officio cancellation as prescribed by Article 175 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, refers to cases where the application for registration is obviously impossible to allow by law in its purport. In cases of registration of correction of indication of a registered titleholder, so-called “when documents necessary for application are not attached” in subparagraph 8 of the same Act.

[Defendant-Appellee] Korean Film Corporation (Attorney Lee Na-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Korean Buddhist filmer of the Republic of Korea

Seoul Central District Court Order 73Ra280 Decided July 20, 1973

The original decision shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The second ground of reappeal of the re-appellant and the second ground of reappeal of the re-appellant are examined.

Where a registration officer has completed the receipt of an application for registration by accepting an application for registration, and where the registration falls under Article 5, Article 175, subparagraph 1 and Article 175 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, the registration officer may not ex officio cancel the registration due to any cause not exceeding Article 55, subparagraph 3 of the same Act even if the registration falls under the death of the registration officer, and the cancellation of the registration may not be claimed in a way of objection against the disposition of the registration officer, apart from the dispute as a lawsuit (Supreme Court Order 73Ma69 delivered on August 29, 1973). According to Articles 31 and 48 of the same Act, where a registration officer applies for registration of correction of the indication of the registration titleholder, the registration officer may apply for registration of correction of the indication of the above registration titleholder, along with a document verifying it, and the record reveals that the re-appellant completed the registration by accepting it.

However, Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the same Act refers to the case where it is obvious that the application for registration cannot be permitted by law in its purport itself, and it falls under "the case where the re-appellant who is the applicant for registration of correction does not attach documents necessary for the application" in Article 5 subparagraph 8 of the same Act, so long as the registrar has accepted the application for registration of correction of the identification of the re-appellant's registered titleholder, the other party cannot seek cancellation of the registration as a method of raising an objection against the disposition of the public official. However, the court below maintained the first instance decision that ordered cancellation of the registration by receiving an objection against the registration public official, which is justifiable, because it does not affect the judgment of the court below, since Article 5 subparagraph 2 and Article 175 of the Registration of Real Estate Act does not affect the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, it is decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that it is unnecessary to determine the remaining grounds for reappeal by the re-appellant and his legal representative, and the original decision is reversed and remanded.

Justices Kim Yoon-Jeng (Presiding Justice)