(a) Requirements for the registration of transfer of ownership to restore the title of petition;

(b) Where a person registered as an owner with respect to a part of the share at the time of registration of cancellation obtains a favorable judgment on the confirmation of ownership for the whole real estate, whether he/she may seek the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true title for the whole real estate in excess of such share

C. Whether the judgment of cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the ground of exchange is in conflict with the res judicata effect (negative)

A. To recover the true title, the ownership transfer registration for the purpose of restoring the true title is to seek implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the ownership registration procedure against the present registered titleholder based on the ownership in a way that the true owner who had already registered the ownership in his/her future or acquired the ownership in accordance with the law is to restore the title of the registration.

B. Even if the Plaintiff was rendered a favorable judgment on the confirmation of ownership of the entire real estate, if only 85/208 shares of the above real estate were registered as an owner at the time when the cancellation registration of ownership was made, the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true title of the entire real estate cannot be claimed in excess of such shares.

C. The plaintiffs now seek implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of the true title of registration against the defendant, who is the title holder on the register, even though he is not the right holder based on his ownership. If Gap, who was cancelled by the judgment, seeks the ownership transfer registration based on the exchange received from the defendant and the restoration of the ownership transfer registration made in sequential from the defendant, it cannot be viewed as a violation of the res judicata effect of the above judgment.

(b)Article 186(b) of the Civil Code; Article 262(c) of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court en banc Decision 89Meu12398 Decided November 27, 1990 (Gong189 delivered on December 21, 1990) (Gong26482 delivered on December 21, 199)

Attorney Kim Jung-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and 13 others

Korea

Daegu High Court Decision 87Na964 delivered on June 8, 1988

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s literature and morality.

The registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true name is already registered in his own name, or the true owner who acquired the ownership under the law, by means of restoring the title of the registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 89Meu12398, Nov. 27, 1990). According to the judgment of the court below, with respect to the real estate recorded in the attached Form 8 List, the plaintiff Jong-tae was judged as winning in the lawsuit against each defendant in the lawsuit for the confirmation of ownership against the defendant as to the real estate listed in the attached Table 16 List, but the plaintiff Jong-tae was judged as winning in the lawsuit against the defendant on March 30, 1979, while the plaintiff Jong-tae was made to Kim Jong-tae on March 30, 1979, and the plaintiff Jong-sik was made to Kim Chang-tae on March 31, 1984, and the registration of ownership transfer was cancelled by the defendant.

Therefore, in this case where there are no other circumstances that the registration of transfer of ownership made in the name of the above non-party from the Plaintiff’s attitude, virtue, etc. is null and void, the Plaintiff’s attitude and virtue cannot be said to be the owner entitled to seek the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership for the restoration of the true name of each of the above real estate.

In the same purport, the court below's rejection of the above plaintiff's claim for ownership transfer registration is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit. The arguments are groundless.

Plaintiff 1’s ground of appeal is examined.

The court below held that although the plaintiff's best attitude filed a lawsuit for confirmation of ownership against the defendant as to the real estate stated in the attached Table 3's attached Form 3, 208's share in the above real estate was cancelled in the plaintiff's best name, and 123's share in the remaining 208's name is cancelled, and even if the plaintiff's best attitude was judged in favor of the confirmation of ownership as to the whole real estate, since it was registered as the owner only as to 85's share in the above real estate at the time the cancellation registration was made, the court below's above disposition of the court below cannot be claimed for the registration of ownership transfer for restoration of the true title of the real real estate in excess of the share in the above real estate, since it was examined in the record, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misunderstanding of legal principles, etc.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

The court below acknowledged that the real estate of this case was owned by the plaintiffs' owner in order from the above deceased on August 18, 1945, since the transfer registration procedure has been completed in the name of the plaintiffs in the name of the plaintiff as of August 18, 194, after exchanging the real estate of this case with the head of Busan Construction Bureau and the head of Busan Construction Bureau, which was a state property under the jurisdiction of the head of the Busan Construction Bureau, the Busan Construction Division, the Busan Construction Government, and the real estate of this case, which was owned by the deceased on January 1, 1945, with the approval of the head of the Busan Construction Bureau, and the head of the Busan Construction Bureau, which was a state property under the jurisdiction of the head of the Busan Construction Government, the above deceased on August 18, 1945, and the transfer registration procedure has been completed in order from the above deceased on the basis that the transfer registration procedure was completed in the name of the plaintiff as of the first trial. In other words, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-joon (Presiding Justice)