[1] Where an application for registration is filed, the scope of the authority of a registrar to examine

[2] Where Gap filed an application for registration of transfer of ownership based on inheritance on the premise that he/she is the heir of Eul, whose ownership is indicated as the owner of ownership in the registry, and the registrar decided to dismiss the application, the case holding that it is difficult to recognize Gap's predecessor as the same person as Eul's titleholder only with the application information, attached information and registration record submitted by Gap while applying for registration in light of all the circumstances

[1] Where an application for registration is filed, a registrar has the authority to examine whether the application for registration is legitimate based on information on application, information on attachment, and registration record according to the details and procedures prescribed in the Registration of Real Estate Act.

[2] In a case where Gap filed an application for registration of ownership transfer on the premise that he is the heir of Eul, whose ownership is indicated in the name of ownership in the registry, and the registrar decided to dismiss the application, the case holding that in light of the following: (a) where the resident registration number of Eul was added to the above real estate and the date of birth of Eul was different; and (b) the land registration number of Eul was deleted at Gap's request, but there was no other data on the circumstance where the resident registration number was erroneously entered or the verification of ownership was submitted; (c) the owner of land cadastre was not recognized as the same person as the registered titleholder Eul based on the application information, attached information, and registration record submitted by Gap while applying for registration.

[1] Article 29 of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [2] Article 29 subparagraph 7 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Applicant

Busan District Court Order 2016Ra2271 dated November 30, 2017

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. Where a registrar receives an application for registration, he/she shall have the authority to examine whether the application for registration is legitimate based on the information on application, information on attachment and registration record according to the details and procedures prescribed in the Registration of Real Estate Act

2. According to the order of the court below and the record, the following facts are revealed.

A. On November 14, 1964, 1964, 1/2 of the 1/2 shares among the 301m2 and 10m2 of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City ○○○○○○○ △△dong, Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant real estate”), the ownership transfer registration is made in the name of △△△△△ (name omitted), Busan Northern-dong ○○○○ △△△dong, Busan △△△△△, hereinafter “△△△△△”).

B. On October 25, 2016, the applicant filed an application for the registration of transfer of ownership based on inheritance following the division of consultation (hereinafter “instant application for registration”) with the heir of △△△△△ (hereinafter “the decedent”), including the applicant, inherited one-half shares of the instant real estate and owned it solely by the applicant.

C. The details of the application information and accompanying information submitted by the applicant at the time of the application for registration of this case are as follows.

(1) A certified copy of the document on the △△△△△ of the decedent: the decedent △△△△ (Korean name omitted), the permanent domicile of the decedent (○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ University, Chungcheongnam-gun), was born on March 20, 1973 (date of birth 1 omitted).

(2) On July 26, 2016, prepared by the head of Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government, notice of absence of information: The applicant’s wife and 1 other than the applicant filed a request for disclosure of information on the resident registration card of the decedent 1,00,000, but the request for information disclosure cannot be made due to lack of data

(3) On October 21, 2016, prepared by the non-applicant 2 and non-applicant 3, 2016, the same guarantee certificate: Non-applicant 2, and non-applicant 3, the registered titleholder and the registered titleholder and the decedent are the same person.

(4) The Korean-style land cadastre prepared prior to the enforcement of the former Cadastral Act (wholly amended by Act No. 2801, Dec. 31, 1975; hereinafter “former Cadastral Act”) with respect to the instant real estate: The ownership transfer on November 14, 1964 regarding the portion of 1/2 of the instant real estate became the ownership transfer in the future.

(5) 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 구 지적법 시행 이후에 새로 작성된 카드식 구 토지대장: 1977. 4. 23. 최초로 작성되면서 종전의 내용이 그대로 이기되었다가 이후 등기명의인 ☆☆☆의 주민등록번호로 ‘(생년월일 2 생략)-◎◎◎◎◎◎◎’이 추가되었고, 경남 김해군 ○○읍 ▽▽리는 부산 북구 ○○△동 ▽▽리를 거쳐 부산 강서구 ○○△동으로 행정구역이 변경되었다.

(6) 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 전산화된 토지대장: 등기명의인 ☆☆☆의 주민등록번호 ‘(생년월일 2 생략)-◎◎◎◎◎◎◎’이 그대로 이기되어 기재되어 있다.

(d) The main contents of the accompanying information that an applicant submitted in addition are as follows:

(1) 피상속인 ☆☆☆에 대한 전적 전 제적등본: 피상속인 ☆☆☆[(한자 이름 생략), 전적 전 본적: 경남 김해군 ◁◁면 ▷▷리 ♤♤♤]는 대정(대정) (생년월일 1 생략) 출생하였다.

(2) On October 26, 2016, which was prepared by a certified judicial scrivener other than 4, 2016, the same guarantee certificate: The original resident registration of the decedent △△△△ is not kept in the Dong office, and the verification of address is to substitute for a notification such as absence of information, etc., and the registered titleholder △△△△△△ and the decedent are the same persons.

(3) Computerized land cadastre regarding the instant real estate: At the request of the applicant, the resident registration number of △△△△ is deleted.

E. On October 27, 2016, 2016, the registrar rejected the instant application for registration on the ground that: (a) the registered titleholder and the predecessor are the same person; (b) there is a lack of vindication that the registered titleholder and the decedent are the same persons; (c) thus, the registration officer constitutes “where the indication of the person liable for registration of application information is inconsistent

3. We examine these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

이 사건 부동산에 관하여 카드식 구 토지대장에 등기명의인 ☆☆☆의 주민등록번호로 ‘(생년월일 2 생략)-◎◎◎◎◎◎◎’이 추가되었고, 이는 피상속인 ☆☆☆(생년월일 1 생략)와 생년월일이 다르다. 이후 신청인의 요청에 따라 등기명의인 ☆☆☆의 주민등록번호가 삭제된 토지대장이 제출되었지만, 토지대장의 소유자란 주민등록번호가 잘못 기재된 경위나 소유권의 증명에 관한 다른 자료가 없다. 이러한 사정을 고려하면, 신청인이 이 사건 등기신청을 하면서 제출한 신청정보와 첨부정보 그리고 등기기록만으로 등기명의인 ☆☆☆와 피상속인 ☆☆☆가 동일인이라고 선뜻 인정하기는 어렵다.

The lower court rejected the applicant’s objection against a registration officer’s disposition. In so determining, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations or did not err by violating the Constitution, statutes, orders, or rules as alleged in the grounds of reappeal.

If the registered titleholder, △△△△ and the decedent are not the same person, the applicant shall obtain a judgment against the △△△△ (2 omitted) recorded on the land cadastre of the former land cadastre, or his/her heir, with the content that the share of 1/2 of the instant real estate is determined as owned by the applicant. If the registered titleholder and the decedent are the same person, the applicant shall obtain additional data on the grounds that the resident registration number of the former land cadastre is erroneous or other data on the certification of ownership.

4. The reappeal is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)