Whether a written consent of the interested party or a certified copy of a judgment substituted therefor is required in making a registration of restoration according to a judgment;

Even if a registration of recovery was made on the basis of a final and conclusive judgment of the claim for registration of recovery against the person liable for registration, if there is a third party interested in the registration, the written consent of the interested party or a certified copy of the trial in lieu thereof shall be attached to the application for registration of recovery, and if the registration of recovery has been made without being attached thereto, it shall be null and void in relation to the interested third party even if it is based on

Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Article 55

Daegu District Court (71 Gohap807) in the first instance

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

On September 10, 1971, the defendant filed a claim for the restoration registration of provisional registration No. 50246 of the Daegu District Court No. 71 Gohap457 against the plaintiffs as to Daegu-si (number omitted), Daegu-dong (number omitted) 27, the defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the establishment registration of the establishment of the establishment of a neighboring claim No. 63963, 600,000 won on December 8, 1970, which was received on September 11, 1970 by the same court as the receipt of No. 63964, 63963, 600,000 won on September 10, 1971.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs through the first and second trials.

In the Daegu-si, Daegu-gu, the Nonparty was originally owned by the Nonparty on December 11, 1970, and the Nonparty was the Daegu District Court No. 63964, which was received on December 11, 1970 by the Nonparty on the security of the obligation against the Defendant, and the provisional registration was received on December 8, 1970 for preserving the right to claim for ownership transfer registration based on the reservation on December 11, 1970, and the establishment registration was completed on December 8, 1970, KRW 600,000 for maximum debt amount, KRW 600,000 on December 14, 1970, and the Defendant again revoked each of the above registrations on April 15, 1971, and did not receive and preserve the ownership registration from the parties to the Daegu District Court prior to the receipt of the provisional registration and the registration of cancellation of the establishment registration on April 14, 1971.

The plaintiffs' legal representative asserted that the above restoration registration should be cancelled because the defendant's application for the above restoration registration is not accompanied by the letter of consent or the copy of the trial under Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, so if there is a third party with an interest in the registration in the case of an application for restoration of the cancelled registration under Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, the plaintiff is a third party with an interest in the registration at the time of applying for the restoration registration with the final judgment of claim for restoration registration No. 71-Gahap457 against the non-party. Thus, even if the application for the restoration registration is based on a final judgment of winning the non-party against the non-party, the restoration registration can not be accompanied by the letter of consent of the plaintiffs or the copy of the trial that can be asserted against the plaintiffs, and if that is not so, the defendant's restoration registration cannot be made. Since the defendant's consent or the copy of the trial that the defendant can oppose the plaintiffs at the time of application is attached to the defendant's restoration registration as the defendant's restoration registration.

Even if the registration of recovery is null and void, the plaintiffs are obligated to accept the procedure for the registration of recovery under Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act. Thus, the above registration of recovery cannot be asserted. Moreover, since the defendant's lawsuit against the plaintiff as the Daegu District Court 72Gahap311 decided in favor of the defendant, and the party members are still pending at the party members, the registration of recovery is eventually legitimate. Since the defendant can make the registration of recovery of cancelled registration again as the above judgment after the date, it is possible for the defendant to make the registration of recovery. Thus, since the plaintiff's claim is without any reason or there is no interest in the non-party, the plaintiff has the duty to accept the procedure for the registration of recovery as a third party with a interest in the registration, but it cannot be a reason for the plaintiff to claim the invalidation of the above registration, and the defendant's claim against the plaintiff in favor of the plaintiff No. 14 (Judgment) cannot be seen as being valid in the above judgment of recovery of the plaintiff's registration of recovery.

Thus, since the defendant's registration of recovery of objection is invalid, the defendant's registration of recovery is obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation of the above restoration registration. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in its purport, and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to

Judges Sho-ho (Presiding Judge) Nowho-ho