Where a registration of ownership preservation has been made with the actual lot number (number 1 omitted) of a building (number 2 omitted), whether the identity of the actual building is recognized and the registration of correction is permitted.

The accurate lot number of the building in this case is 60 square meters (number 2 omitted) and if the registration of preservation of ownership was made by using (number 2 omitted) as the lot number of the base before making the registration of correction by the correct marking, it is reasonable to interpret that the registration of preservation by the first (number 2 omitted) is invalid to the extent that there is an error to the extent that it cannot be recognized as identical with the building in this case, and thus, the registration of correction is not permissible (number 1 omitted).

Articles 72 and 42 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 74Na16 delivered on July 18, 1974

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Plaintiff’s agent’s grounds of appeal.

The court below recognized the fact that the lot number of the building in this case is different from the lot number of the building in this case because it was caused by mistake in the registration, and the building in this case was corrected by the same lot number as the building in this case, and held that this registration is consistent with the substance of the building in this case as indicating the identity of the building in this case. On the contrary to the judgment of the court below, if the building in this case is at least 60 square meters (number 1 omitted) and the correct lot number in this case is at least 60 square meters (number 2 omitted) and before the defendant makes a registration of correction of the correct sign as above, the registration of preservation of ownership was made by making (number 2 omitted) the lot number of the base as the lot number of the building in this case. However, the opinion of the court below is that this is merely a mistake indicating the lot number on which the building in this case is located in this case, and thus, it can be remanded to the court below's decision that it is against the purport of the court below's decision that the remaining collegiate panel of this case is reversed.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)