Whether a person liable for registration may seek the acquisition of registration against a person liable for registration pursuant to Article 29 of the Registration of Real Estate Act (affirmative)

In principle, the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that registration shall be applied jointly by the person entitled to registration and the person liable for registration (Article 28), but Articles 29 shall be applied only by the person who won the registration or the person liable for registration. In addition to the person liable for registration who won the registration, where the person liable for registration is allowed to apply for registration alone, the person liable for registration, other than the person liable for registration who won the registration, may be exempted from the liability burden by deposit, etc., if the creditor delays the receipt of the registration. However, in relation to the ordinary obligation and the relation of the registration, this method may not be used. Therefore, where the person liable for registration is likely to suffer disadvantages in social life or legal law due to the fact that the registration which he/she should know in his/her name is in his/her own name

Article 29 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and four others

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na63048 delivered on September 28, 2000

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

In principle, the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that registration shall be applied jointly by the person entitled to registration and the person liable for registration (Article 28), but Articles 29 shall be applied only by the person who won the registration or the person liable for registration. In addition to the person liable for registration who won the registration, where the person liable for registration is allowed to apply for registration alone, the person liable for registration, other than the person liable for registration who won the registration, may be exempted from liability by deposit, etc., if the creditor delays the receipt of the registration, but this method may not be used in relation to the relation of the registration. Therefore, where the person liable for registration is likely to suffer disadvantages in social life or legal law due to the fact that the registration he/she is not entitled to receive in his/her name, the person liable for registration shall be entitled to take over the registration

According to the evidence established by the court below, the plaintiff and the defendants agreed to enter into a sales contract with the defendants to purchase the previous land owned by the plaintiff and to grant a building permit and to register the preservation of ownership on the plaintiff's land. Accordingly, the defendants filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff as to the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration on the 18 household household unit housing constructed on the above land and the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration on the plaintiff's own land was completed. The six households among the 18 households of the above apartment house have sold to others and completed the registration of ownership transfer directly from the plaintiff's buyer, and the three households have completed the registration of ownership transfer from the plaintiff's buyer. The plaintiff's ownership transfer registration had been completed under the plaintiff's name to acquire the remaining real estate under the plaintiff's own name, but the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration had been delayed due to a dispute over compensation for losses arising from the remaining land between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff's right to ownership transfer registration on the above real estate was also filed with the plaintiff's 1351,351,277.

The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as well as in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the fact-finding of the court below, including the fact-finding that Defendant 5 is a co-owner. In addition, even though the non-party was given a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one household among the real estate of this case by filing a claim for the transfer registration of ownership against the plaintiff, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff's obligation to transfer ownership to the defendants cannot be deemed to be impossible because the plaintiff's obligation to acquire each real estate of this case is not fulfilled

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)