In a case where a principal registration is cancelled after the registration of a third party is cancelled after the principal registration is cancelled after a principal registration is made on the basis of provisional registration, whether there is a benefit to file for the restoration registration.

Where a registry official cancels a registration of a third person which was made ex officio after a provisional registration because a principal registration of transfer of ownership has been made on the basis of a provisional registration, if the principal registration based on the provisional registration is cancelled for any reason such as invalidation of the cause, etc., then the registry official must make ex officio a registration of cancellation, and therefore there is no benefit to seek a registration of restoration.

Articles 3 and 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da2329,2330 Decided January 26, 1982 (Gong1982, 262) (Gong1982, 262) 82Meu168 Decided March 8, 1983 (No. 30(1),023; No. 676), 262)

Plaintiff Seocho-dong Law Office, Attorneys Yoon Sung-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 94Na9865 delivered on December 21, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

If a registration of transfer of ownership is cancelled ex officio after a provisional registration is made by a registry official, if the principal registration based on the provisional registration is cancelled for reasons such as invalidation of the cause, etc. thereafter, if the principal registration based on the provisional registration is cancelled later, the registration of the third person shall be cancelled ex officio. Therefore, the registry official shall register the cancellation ex officio. Therefore, there is no benefit in filing a registration of restoration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 81Da2329, 2330, Jan. 26, 1982; 82Meu168, Mar. 8, 1983).

In the same purport, the provisional registration of this case in the name of the plaintiff, which was cancelled ex officio by the registry official, shall be restored ex officio by the registry official, and since it is not based on the procedure for recovery registration of both the plaintiff and the defendant, the court below is just in holding that the lawsuit of this case seeking the implementation of the procedure for recovery registration against the defendant is unlawful, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles

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

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)