(a) Objection after the completion of registration;

(b) Whether an application for change of indication of the cancelled registered titleholder is possible;

A. When a registry official completes the registration procedure in accordance with the application for registration, even if the disposition is illegal or unjust in light of the Registration of Real Estate Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes, if it is not a reason falling under Article 55 (1) and (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, it cannot be contested by objection. The reason is that once the registration is made by an interested party, the entry in the registration can not be cancelled without permission, unless there is a provision that can be ex officio ex officio after the occurrence of the

(b) An application for change of indication of a registered titleholder already cancelled shall be rejected pursuant to subparagraph 6 of Article 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act;

Articles 55 and 178 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Order 73Ma386 Dated May 12, 1973

Re-appellant

Jeonju District Court Order 199.21 dated September 21, 1979

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. When a registrar completes the registration procedure in accordance with an application for registration, the opinion of the party member that even if the disposition is unlawful or unjust in light of the Registration of Real Estate Act and other Acts and subordinate statutes, if it is not a reason falling under Article 55 (1) and (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, it cannot be contested by means of objection. On the other hand, the reason is that the registration cannot be cancelled without permission unless there is any special provision that can be cancelled ex officio after the occurrence of an interested party by means of registration (see Supreme Court Order 73Ma386, May 12, 1973).

According to the records, since it is clear that the cancellation registration at issue in this case does not fall under Article 55 (1) and (2) of the above Registration Act, it is obvious that it is not a kind of correction in a manner of objection, the order of the court below rejecting this objection is justified.

2. An application for change of indication of a registered titleholder already cancelled shall be dismissed pursuant to Article 55 subparagraph 6 of the above Registration Act. In this regard, the disposition of a public official who rejected the application for registration of this case is also justified.

3. Therefore, the re-appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges, on the ground that there is an error of law in the original decision.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)