Main Issues
The effect of double registration of preservation of ownership on the same real property
Summary of Judgment
Where a registration of initial ownership has been made differently from the registered titleholder with respect to the same real estate, unless the first registration of initial ownership is null and void, the subsequent registration of initial ownership shall be null and void without any need to examine whether it conforms to the substantive legal relationship. This legal doctrine applies to cases where the title holder of the subsequent registration of initial ownership acquired the ownership of the relevant real estate in original condition.
[Reference Provisions]
Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 15 of the Registration of Real Estate Act
Reference Cases
Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2961, 87Da453 Decided November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 178) Supreme Court Decision 89Meu34688 Decided December 11, 1990 (Gong1991, 452) Supreme Court Decision 93Da20177, 20184 Decided September 20, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3099)
Plaintiff, Appellee
Yangcheon Doz. 24 years of age, Maz. Maz.
Defendant, Appellant
Defendant 1 and four others (Attorney Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)
Judgment of the lower court
Suwon District Court Decision 96Na10406 delivered on July 18, 1997
Text
All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
Reasons
We examine the grounds of appeal.
According to the records, in light of the facts of recognition as stated in its holding, the court below is justified in holding that each of the real estate in the Gyeonggi-gun ( Address 1 omitted) forest and each of the real estate listed in its decision in its separate sheet is identical, and therefore, the registration of preservation of each of the above ( Address 1 omitted) forest and the two of the non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2, and each of the real estate listed in the above separate sheet are overlapping registration of preservation of ownership for the same real estate, and there is no error of law as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.
In addition, where a registration of initial ownership has been made in duplicate with a different titleholder on the same real estate, unless the registration of initial ownership is null and void, the registration of initial ownership shall be null and void without a need to examine whether it conforms to the substantive legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2961, 87Da453, Nov. 27, 1990). This legal principle applies to cases where the title holder of the subsequent registration of initial ownership acquired the ownership of the relevant real estate upon the original acquisition of the ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 89Meu3468, Dec. 11, 1990; 93Da2017, 20184, Sept. 20, 196). In the same purport, the lower court did not err in the misapprehension of the legal relationship of each of the Defendants’ assertion that the registration of initial registration of the instant real estate and the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2 was unlawful as follows.
Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)