Cases where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the invalidation when double registration for preservation of ownership was made;

In the registration of preservation of ownership of a building, even though the lot number of the base becomes its neighboring land and it is not inconsistent with the real name, it cannot be viewed as invalid registration unless it can be corrected by the registration of correction.

Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 66Na296 delivered on September 16, 1966

The judgment below is reversed;

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's agent's ground of appeal is examined.

The facts of this case as determined by the court below are as follows. In other words, as to the building at issue in this case, the ownership preservation registration was made in the name of non-party 1 as of February 21, 1959, and (as for the building at issue in this case, the indication of the base was made in the large exhibition ( Address 1 omitted), ( Address 2 omitted), ( Address 2 omitted), and ( Address 3 omitted) ground (No. 8), and thereafter the indication of the base was changed into the ( Address 4 omitted) and the ground (No. 1 omitted) on April 7, 1960. The ownership transfer registration was passed on November 2, 1960 through the non-party 2, and the indication of the base was corrected to the ( Address 5 omitted) (No. 2) upon the plaintiff's request.

On the other hand, on August 14, 1961, with respect to the same building, the registration for preservation of ownership was passed under the name of the plaintiff upon the request for compulsory auction by the non-party 3 to the plaintiff on August 14, 1961, and the registration of collateral security created by the plaintiff on April 22, 1964 was entered in the following registration: the registration of collateral security which was created by the plaintiff on the mortgage of this building was later entered in the registration: (a) the registration for preservation of ownership was passed through two times as of February 21, 1959 and August 14, 1961; and (b) the registration for preservation of ownership was later passed through two times as of August 14, 1961.

However, the court below held this point as follows. In other words, "where the housing site number of a building is registered differently from the real estate, it shall be deemed that there is no need to make the revised registration, and even if such revised registration is made, as in the case of this case, there is a legitimate preservation registration already satisfying the substantive requirements, and when there is an interested party in this preservation registration by granting the registration of creation of collateral security based on this preservation registration, it is necessary to voluntarily cancel the registration of preservation of indication building No. 1 which is the object of the real estate registration system, which is the purpose of the real estate registration system, because it is not consistent with the real substance, and rather, it shall be deemed that there is no reason to invalidate the lawful and effective registration which has already been based on the real estate transaction by correcting the registration of invalidity and giving a retroactive effect.

If we look at the purport of the original adjudication above, first, it is a registration for the preservation of ownership for the building as the first time, and first, it is marked as a substitute ( Address 4 omitted) and No. 1, and it is not consistent with the actual situation. Second, such registration is not an application for registration to correct the indication of the base later, and then the effect of the correction is not retroactive to the first time, even if it is possible to pass through the registration for the preservation of ownership for the building. However, if the registration for the preservation of ownership for the building was passed, the parcel number of the base is the ( Address 5 omitted) adjacent to it, and even if the indication of the base of the building does not coincide with the actual situation, it cannot be viewed as invalid registration for the preservation of ownership, unless there are any other circumstances.

This is because the indication of these bases can be applied later for the purpose of subsequent conformity with the actual reality, and the effect of correction would naturally be retroactively retroactively to the past if such correction is made through the registration of correction. In addition, it cannot be said that the registration of preservation of ownership was passed through the registration of preservation of ownership, and this would not significantly affect the identification of the building (see Supreme Court Decision 4289No595 delivered on February 28, 1957). As such, the judgment of the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the invalidation of the registration of preservation of ownership, and this appeal is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is justified, since the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the invalidation of registration of preservation of ownership.

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

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

The judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Republic of Korea shall have the authority to transfer a red net holiday.