In case the ownership transfer registration made by the protocol prior to the filing of a lawsuit has been made without permission from the Minister of Home Affairs under the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act, the legal relation

If a national has completed the registration of ownership transfer by means of a telephone for filing a lawsuit against a foreigner in the future without permission from the Minister of Home Affairs as prescribed by the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act, the protocol of conciliation is recognized as res judicata identical to the final and conclusive judgment. Therefore, the creditor, as well as the previous land owner, subrogated creditor, cannot dispute the registration of ownership transfer under the above foreigner's name, and the protocol of

Article 5(1) of the Foreigner’s Land Acquisition Act, Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na697 delivered on June 22, 1978

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records, the court below acknowledged the legal effect of the provisional attachment on the land of this case by the defendant 1, who is a foreigner holding the nationality of the Republic of Korea in the middle-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) and 17-5 Hobbebbebbe (hereinafter referred to as the land of this case) which was originally owned by the non-party, as follows: the ownership transfer registration was made by telephone call, which is a foreigner holding the nationality of the Republic of Korea in the middle-gu; the ownership transfer registration was made in the future of the defendant 2; and the plaintiff made a provisional attachment execution on the land of this case based on the monetary claim against the non-party; as long as the ownership transfer registration on the land of this case was made by telephone call of the non-party, the above non-party cannot dispute the ownership transfer registration on the land of this case under the name of defendant 1; the above legal principle also applies to the plaintiff who makes the claim of this case on behalf of the non-party, and the above non-party and defendant 1 cannot be concluded to be null and void.

2. Even though the registration of invalidity of the cause of the transfer registration of ownership on the land of this case completed in Defendant 1's future, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff can directly claim the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the plaintiff is a person holding a provisional seizure right based on a monetary claim. In this case, the plaintiff may claim the cancellation of the registration on the ground that he is a person holding a provisional seizure right by subrogation of the above non-party under the obligee's subrogation right. In this case, even if the plaintiff is a person holding a provisional seizure right, there is no difference

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and therefore dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 400, 395, and 384, Paragraph (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. The bearing of litigation costs is governed by Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act, and is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)