Where a registration officer erroneously cancels the registration, the method of such restitution registration;

If the former registration cancelled in the course of the restoration of cancellation registration becomes a joint application, the registration of restoration shall also be applied jointly. However, if the registration is cancelled ex officio or at the court’s request, the registration of restoration shall also be executed ex officio or at the court’s request. Thus, there is no benefit to the filing of the registration of restoration, and such legal principle equally applies to the case where the registrar cancels any registration which cannot be cancelled due to mistake.

Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Da2329, 2330 Decided January 26, 1982 (Gong1982, 262) Supreme Court Decision 89Meu5673 Decided June 26, 1990 (Gong1990, 1557) decided May 26, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2260)

(Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na4570 delivered on April 19, 1994

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

A. As to Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

If the former registration cancelled in the restoration of cancellation registration becomes a joint application, in principle, the joint application shall also be made, or if the registration is cancelled by the official authority or by the commission of the court, the registration of restoration shall also be made ex officio or at the request of the court (see Supreme Court Decisions 81Da2329, 2330, Jan. 26, 1982; 82Meu1203, Mar. 8, 1983). This legal principle shall also apply to the case where the registration official’s mistake cancels any registration which cannot be cancelled by mistake.

According to the records, if the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were originally registered for ownership transfer registration under the joint name of the court of execution, and the non-party 1/2 of the above non-party 3 shares among the land and buildings of this case, the court of execution of provisional seizure ordered the cancellation of the provisional seizure registration under the non-party 1's order of provisional seizure on August 5, 198 and the non-party 2's request for the above provisional seizure registration under the non-party 1's order of provisional seizure on the same court office No. 33952. The provisional seizure registration was completed on March 20, 191, and the non-party 3 and the above non-party 1's request for ownership transfer registration was made on the non-party 1'the non-party 2's request for the cancellation of the provisional seizure registration under the non-party 1's name and the non-party 1's request for the cancellation of the provisional seizure registration on the non-party 1's share of this case.

B. As to each of the grounds of appeal against Defendant C’s driver and Defendant C

A lawsuit for confirmation is allowed when there is existing danger or apprehension in the rights or legal relations, and it becomes the most effective means to eliminate the danger or apprehension.

However, according to the above facts, among the land and buildings of this case, Defendant 3 acquired the shares of the above non-party 1 who was not provisionally seized by the plaintiff, and Defendant 3 was the right holder of the real estate for the purpose of provisional seizure at the time of the registration of each provisional seizure in the name of the plaintiff, and it is obvious that each of the above provisional seizure registration was cancelled, and thus, the claim of this case against the above defendants cannot be an effective and appropriate means to eliminate the present danger and apprehension, and therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit of confirmation in this case against the above defendants shall be deemed to be unlawful without a benefit of lawsuit. The judgment below is just, and there is no ground to conclude that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)