(a) Whether the existence of existence of registration of preservation of ownership of a different person with respect to the land that was divided into the land before subdivision falls under overlapping registration;

(b) Effect of duplicate preservation registration with different holders of ownership;

(c) Requirements for a registration which is made based on an invalid preservation registration among duplicate preservation registrations to become a valid registration;

(a) Where a certain parcel of land is divided into several parcels, if there is a difference in ownership preservation for the land that was divided into the land before the division in which the former parcel of land exists, the two registrations shall be the overlapping registration for the same parcel of land in which the same part of the land is substantially identical;

B. In a case where the preservation registration for one owner of the same land is conducted in duplicate, and the validity of each other is disputed in the litigation proceedings, the court should determine which registration corresponds to the substantive legal relationship and proceed with it.

C. As a result of considering the substantive relationship of double preservation registration, one of them is the preservation registration of invalidation and the subsequent registration is also null and void, if the registration indicating the current legal relationship conforms to the corresponding substantive legal relationship and there is no third party having an interest in the register as to that land until the registration is completed, such registration shall be deemed to be a valid registration.

Article 15 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act

(a)B. (c) Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2132 Decided March 10, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 83Meu848 Decided August 23, 1983;

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Attorney Lee Jae-hoon, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Defendant 1 and nine defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant Kimchi-mar, defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na3643 delivered on August 31, 1987

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each party.

1. First, we examine the Defendants’ attorney’s grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2.

In a case where a certain parcel of land is divided into several parcels, if there exists a separate ownership preservation register for the land that was divided into the land before the division, the two registrations shall be deemed a duplicate registration for the same land that is substantially identical to the same part of the land, and the interpretation of the title register shall not be different. Because the current registration system adopts the registration form system for one real estate and adopts only one registration form for the same real estate, and even if the indication of the title register is different for the same real estate, it would result in the registration for the same part of the divided land and the original land.

In addition, in a case where the preservation registration for the same land is conducted in duplicate with the person holding the title to the same land, and the effect of the registration is disputed in the litigation proceedings, the court shall determine which registration corresponds to the substantive legal relationship and shall proceed with it. On the other hand, even if any one of the registrations becomes invalid as a result of the establishment of a substantive relationship, and even if one of the registration becomes null and void as a result of the establishment of a preservation registration for the invalidation, if the registration indicating the current legal relationship conforms to the substantive legal relationship corresponding thereto and there is no third party having an interest in the registration, such registration shall be deemed valid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Meu848, Aug. 23, 1983; 84Meu2132, Mar. 10, 1987).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below purchased the above real estate title No. 2, 4, 5, and 6 in the title list No. 1 of this case at the time of original adjudication (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate of this case") under the name of Defendant No. 1 on June 26, 1978, and on June 28 of the same month, the registration of ownership preservation was completed under the name of Defendant No. 1 on the remaining Defendants (as to Defendant No. 2, Defendant No. 3, Defendant No. 4, and Defendant No. 5, and Defendant No. 6, the decedent No. 1), and it is hard to recognize that the registration of ownership transfer was invalid under the name of the above plaintiff No. 1 on the title No. 5 at the time when the above real estate was acquired under the title No. 1 of this case at the time of original adjudication, and it is also hard to recognize that the registration of ownership transfer was invalid under the name of the above plaintiff No. 1 on June 7, 1954.

In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are just and there are no errors in the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, omission of judgment, lack of reasoning, and misapprehension of legal principles, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. Next, we examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim seeking cancellation of Defendant 1's registration of preservation of ownership and cancellation of each registration in the remaining names of the defendants, based on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner of the above real estate, even though there was no assertion that the plaintiff had ownership in the attached list 7 and 8 at the time of original adjudication, and the period of prescription for acquisition of ownership in the above real estate has expired as of the plaintiff's letter as to the above real estate by 20 years, without the registration in the plaintiff's name as to the above real estate.

According to the records, according to Gap's evidence No. 4 (Register of register), as in the theory of lawsuit, the above ( Address omitted), 13,714 shares of 13,714 of 8,233.3,123.11 shares of 13,71 of 13,714 of 13,714 of 13,714 of 13,714 of 13,233.30 of 123.30, 1965 through the non-party 4, although it is recognized that the plaintiff had completed the registration of ownership transfer under the plaintiff's name, the shares of 1,123.14 of 13,714 of 13,714 of 13,714 of 13,714 of 13,714 of 199 were the real estate or the specific purchase shares of 7,8 of 3,000 of 13,00.

The issue is groundless.

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)