The case where the cancellation is recognized on the ground that the registration of transfer of the closed registry is null and void.

Even if the transfer registration stated in the new register is cancelled, it shall be transferred to the new register unless the registration of the closed register is cancelled. Therefore, the closed registration shall also be cancelled.

Articles 93, 96, and 97 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da1089 Delivered on September 25, 1979

Countries

Defendant 1 and nine others

Busan District Court (68Ga2253)

The part concerning defendant 1 among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

Defendant 1 performed the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on December 11, 1956, which was the Busan District Court's Busan District Court's receipt of No. 13237 on December 14, 1956, with regard to the Plaintiff's response 704 square meters in Jeonpo-dong, Busan District Court 494.

Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 shall be dismissed in entirety.

Of the costs of lawsuit, the part of the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 shall be borne by the defendant in both the first and second instances, and the other costs of appeal by the defendants shall be borne by the said defendants.

Defendant 3, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 against the plaintiff as to the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on September 7, 1962 as Busan District District Court No. 6899, which was received on September 18, 1962, with regard to the plaintiff 5383/5 of the 3 site number of 547 square meters and 5473 square meters in Jeonpo-dong, 363.

Defendant 1 shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the completion of repayment on December 11, 1956, as set forth in No. 13234, December 14, 1956, for the share in the above real estate.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

Preliminaryly, 5475 5383

1. Defendant 3, 2, 4, and 5 are the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership on September 7, 1962, No. 6899, which was received on September 10, 1962, with respect to the shares of each five-minutes.

2. Defendant 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on September 7, 1962, which was received on September 18, 1962 by the above registry office pursuant to each inheritance share ratio (Defendant 6, 9, 10, each 8-1, 7, 8-3, 8-2, and 88-2) against one-fifth of the deceased non-party 1's shares (Defendant 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10).

The decision of the section 1, 2, and 4 of the order is sought.

The judgment of the first instance court against the Defendants (excluding Defendant 1) shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's objection is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

Defendant 3, 4, 5, and 7 asserted that the claim against the above defendant against Defendant 1 should be dismissed as the defendant 1 had already died at the time of the lawsuit in this case. Accordingly, according to the purport of the statement and oral argument, the defendant 1 died on May 26, 1968, and the defendant 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, who is the wife, succeeded to the above inheritor. However, the plaintiff is not aware of the above death and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit on June 25, 1968. Thus, in this case, the above defendant is the de facto inheritor, and the above inheritor was corrected as the defendant on September 18, 1968. Thus, the above defense is groundless since the defendant was corrected as the defendant on September 18, 1968.

The following facts are as follows: (a) No. 1,2 (a copy of the register, drawings, 2,7) of No. 1, 12-3, and 12-1, (a) of No. 12-3, No. 15, and (b) No. 6-1, No. 44 of the Busan District Court's 7-1, No. 96-2, Nov. 4, 2007; (b) No. 1, No. 97-1, Nov. 4, 2007; and (c) No. 96-1, Nov. 4, 2007; and (d) No. 1, Nov. 15, 2005; (e) No. 97-1, Nov. 6, 2007; and (e) No. 97-1, Nov. 16, 2007; and (e) No. 97-1, Nov. 4, 2006

If so, distribution under Defendant 1, as to Jeonpo-dong No. 496, No. 704, the previous land before replotting, distributed a lot which is not farmland, so the distribution is null and void. Therefore, the part concerning the registration of transfer of ownership due to the completion of repayment under the name of Defendant 3 and four shall be cancelled due to the invalidation of the cause, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant 3 and the above-mentioned No. 363, No. 547, May 5, 200, which is based on the premise that the above distribution is null and void should also be cancelled as the cause of invalidation ( even if the ownership transfer registration stated in the new register of Defendant 3 and four others, is cancelled, the closed registration number No. 1103, i.e., the new register, and the above registration of Defendant 1, which is closed, shall also be cancelled. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified in the judgment below as to the remaining part of Defendant 1's appeal as to Article 9 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)