Whether a person holding a right to a provisional registration may seek an implementation of the procedure for registration of recovery of the principal registration directly cancelled for the reason that the principal registration, which was based on such provisional registration, was unlawful.

In a case where the principal registration, which is the basis of provisional registration, is cancelled without attaching a written consent of the person having the right to the provisional registration, or a certified copy of a judgment in opposition thereto, the person having the right to the provisional registration, is unable to make the principal registration based on the provisional registration, unless the principal registration is restored. In light of the original purport of the restoration registration system, which is a method of remedy recognized where the cancellation of registration is illegal under the substantive law or under the Registration Act, the person having the right to the provisional registration, as a right under Article 171 of

Articles 75 and 171 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul District Court Branch of the Seoul District Court (85 Ghana1271)

1. Revocation of the original judgment, and the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed.

2. The defendant agrees that the non-party 1 complies with the procedure for the registration of recovery of transfer of ownership registration No. 11242 of the receipt on April 10, 1979, which was cancelled by the Seoul District Court Branch Branch of the Seoul District Court No. 35783, Jun. 30, 1984.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit are divided into two parts, one part, and the other part shall be borne by the defendant and the plaintiff.

The defendant's claim; the defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation of the registration of the ownership transfer right claim under No. 35787 on June 30, 1984 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list 1,2, and 3 as shown in the attached list No. 357 on the same date as the same support is received for the real estate listed in the attached list 4.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

Preliminary Claim. The costs of appeal and the costs incurred by the preliminary Claim, as stated in Paragraph 2, shall be borne by the defendant (the preliminary Claim shall be added at the trial).

The judgment as referred to in Paragraph (1) and the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. If Gap's evidence Nos. 1-4, 1-2 (each copy of register), and 3 (Settlement Protocol), without dispute, gather the purport of all pleadings, the registration of ownership transfer and the registration of ownership transfer was completed with respect to the real estate recorded in the attached list, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 10, 1979, and the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the above real estate was completed on April 9, 1979 with the non-party 3, and the provisional registration was completed on April 10, 1979 for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer registration on the plaintiff's name on the same day. However, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were not subject to the above provisional registration with respect to the above real estate under the non-party 3's name and the non-party 3's order to cancel the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the above sale. The judgment against the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 against whom the above judgment against the non-party 3 and the plaintiff 1 were declared as to have become final.

2. Judgment on the main claim

The plaintiff, who received provisional registration based on the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 3 as to the real estate in this case, constitutes a third party with interest in the above transfer registration under Article 171 of the Registration of Real Estate Act. Thus, in cancelling transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party, the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 3 should be null and void in relation to the plaintiff, although the consent of the plaintiff or a certified copy of the court decision that can oppose the plaintiff, the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 1 should be deemed null and void in relation to the plaintiff. Therefore, on the premise that the above transfer of ownership is legally cancelled, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 2, who was completed from the non-party 2, the former owner of

Therefore, according to the above facts, the above provisional registration of the plaintiff's name was made based on the above provisional registration of the non-party 3, and thus, when cancelling the registration of transfer of the non-party 3's title, the plaintiff constitutes a third party who has an interest in the registration under Article 171 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, as alleged below. Therefore, the cancellation registration of the non-party 3's transfer of ownership is null and void in relation to the plaintiff who is a third party who has an interest in the registration of transfer of ownership without attaching the plaintiff's written consent or a copy of the judgment which can oppose it. However, it cannot be viewed that the above registration of the non-party 1's transfer of ownership and the above registration of the non-party 1's title which is based on it cannot be viewed as a ground for invalidation under the substantive law or any other reason. Even if the above registration was invalidated due to the invalidity of the above registration under Article 171 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, the plaintiff merely is a third party with interest in the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of the non-party 1's title.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

The plaintiff asserts that the above cancellation registration against the registration of transfer of ownership in the non-party 3, which was completed without attaching the plaintiff's written consent or a certified copy of the judgment that can oppose the above cancellation registration, is null and void in relation to the plaintiff. Thus, the non-party 1 who made the above cancellation registration is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation to the plaintiff, and the defendant who is the third party with interest in the above restoration is obligated to accept the above restoration registration procedure. Thus, the defendant is obligated to accept the above restoration registration procedure.

However, according to the facts found above, the provisional registration of the plaintiff's name was cancelled on the basis of the registration of the non-party 2's name, and the provisional registration of the non-party 3 who succeeded to the title of the registration was made on the basis of the cancellation thereof. The original person liable for registration refers to the person who loses his right or is at a disadvantage by the registration, i.e., the registered titleholder or his general successor. Thus, in this case, the plaintiff's principal registration based on the provisional registration is obvious that the non-party 3 who is the registration titleholder based on the plaintiff's provisional registration should be the person liable for registration. Thus, as long as the ownership transfer registration of the non-party 3 is cancelled on the register, the plaintiff cannot lawfully complete the principal registration based on the provisional registration, and as seen above, the non-party 1 filed a lawsuit against the non-party 3 against the non-party 3, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration can no longer be deemed to have been cancelled in light of the purport of the restoration registration system under the plaintiff 1's title.

4. If so, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit, and thus, the original judgment with different conclusions is unfair, and thus, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed, and the plaintiff's primary claim is accepted, and the additional preliminary claim in the trial is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 92 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of the costs of lawsuit.

Judges Lee Yong-hoon (Presiding Justice)