Effect of double registration in the name of the same person with respect to the same real estate;

If registration of ownership preservation is made in the name of the same person because of a different registration form for the same real estate, the duplicate registration made later than time under the Registration of Real Estate Act adopting the principle of one water form shall be null and void without examining whether it conforms to the substantive right.

Article 15 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 78Na103 delivered on July 5, 1978

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

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

According to the facts acknowledged by the court below, registration of preservation of ownership was made under the name of the defendant on February 6, 1959, and registration of preservation of ownership was made under the name of the plaintiff on March 20, 1963, following the registration of transfer of ownership was made under the name of the non-party on the ground of the completion of repayment on December 31, 1954.

If the facts are the same, as the court below decided properly, if registration of preservation of ownership is entered in duplicate due to a different registration form for the same real estate, it shall be null and void without examining whether it conforms to the substantive right relationship.

The court below did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

Of the time of the original adjudication, only the fact that the plaintiff purchased the farmland of this case from the non-party, the title to seek cancellation of the registration of the defendant's name cannot be created. This decision is identical to the argument that the plaintiff's failure to ask for an explanation as to whether the non-party is subrogated or not. However, even if the plaintiff's claim of this case is the purpose of subrogation, unless there are grounds for cancellation of the registration of preservation of ownership of the defendant's name of February 6, 1959, even if the plaintiff's claim of this case is the purport of subrogation, the judgment of the court below is not affected.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)