Whether the registration of a building in the building management ledger is different from the indication of the building management ledger after completion inspection after completion inspection (negative)

In light of the provisions of Article 56 (1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, where a building has been constructed and the completion inspection has been completed and is registered on the building management ledger, only the registration that has the same indication as the indication of the building management ledger shall be deemed to be a valid registration where the building's parcel number, structure, area, etc. on the registry is publicly announced, except in the case where there is no public book to specify the building number, structure, area, etc. of the building other than the registry at the time of registration.

Article 6 (1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 90Meu8647 delivered on December 11, 1990

Kim Jae-do

Civil flag and 3 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na22543 delivered on February 14, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

As to the Grounds of Appeal

The evidence preparation and fact-finding in the original judgment shall be justified and there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, where a building is registered on the building management ledger as a result of a construction permit completion inspection, and the number, structure, area, etc. of the building is not specified in the registration ledger, unlike the case where there is no public book that can be specified in accordance with the actual conditions at the time of the registration, only the registration whose number, structure, area, etc. are the same as the indication of the building management ledger shall be considered as the effective registration of the building in light of the provisions of Article 56(1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act. Therefore, each registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendants against the building (a) and (b) of this case is obvious in light of the provisions of Article 56(1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, although the registration is the first registration, it cannot be deemed that the said registration is legally published and (b) of the building management ledger, and thus, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the plaintiff is invalid, while the registration of ownership in the name of the owner of each building is later registered, and it is not reasonable that only the owner of this case should be transferred to the plaintiff as the owner.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)