Applicant

Seoul Western District Court Order 2016 non-Ma1 dated March 17, 2016

The appeal of this case is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are recognized by records:

A. The Korea National Housing Corporation organized the land of 25,000 square meters in Yongsan-gu, Seoul Metropolitan City into 24 areas, and constructed an apartment building of 23 and 700 households on the land of 23 areas among them. The remaining land in Yongsan-gu, Seoul, which is the land of 932.6 square meters ( Address 1 omitted), 932.6 square meters ( Address 2 omitted), 95.2 square meters ( Address 2 omitted), 602 square meters on roads of 602 square meters, 589.4 square meters ( Address 4 omitted), and 1071 square meters ( Address 5 omitted), or created a children's playground on the land of 25,000 square meters in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, or on the land of this case (hereinafter the entire apartment of this case and the land of this case).

B. Among the instant apartment constructed on December 31, 1971, the registration of initial ownership was completed for the part of the building of 700 apartment units including the applicant, such as the registration of initial ownership was completed on the 5th 501 floor above the 5th 501 above ground of Yongsan-gu Seoul, Yongsan-gu ( Address 6 through 9 omitted). ② As to the instant apartment units on the same day, the registration of initial ownership was completed on September 16, 1971. The registration of ownership transfer was completed for the sale of the instant apartment units on the same day, including the applicant and the non-party 1. The names of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were indicated as shown in the column of co-owners of the registry of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “former registry”) and there were no separate co-ownership shares on the grounds that co-ownership shares were identical. ③ The registration of the site of this case was completed on July 30, 1986; the non-party 1/6 of this case’s co-ownership shares were recorded in the land.

C. The applicant filed an application for registration of co-ownership change on January 26, 2015, but received a decision of dismissal on January 26, 2015, and filed an objection against the disposition by a registrar of Seoul Western District Court 2015Mo2, but was dismissed on March 26, 2015, and filed an appeal and reappeal with the Supreme Court No. 2015Ra93 and Supreme Court No. 2015Ma968, Jun. 5, 2015; however, the applicant was dismissed on June 5, 2015 and August 13, 2015.

D. The applicant filed the instant appeal on March 17, 2016, after filing an application for registration of co-ownership change for the following reasons, and subsequently dismissed the application for registration of co-ownership change, and subsequently filed an objection against the disposition of registration officer by the Seoul Western District Court 2016No. 1.

2. The claimant's assertion and judgment

A. Applicant's assertion (Summary of Claim)

The land of this case is a part of the site stipulated in the agreement, and 700 households acquired or acquired 1/700 shares per household, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 married couple purchased 1/700 shares of the land of this case among the apartment of this case (the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 married couple seem to have completed registration of preservation of ownership in the future in the non-party 2 as to the apartment of this case). The contents of the old register prepared in the process of completing registration of ownership transfer in the future are that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 married 1 and the non-party 2 purchased 1/70 shares in the aggregate (or that one of the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 acquired 1/70 shares in the aggregate of the shares of the non-party 2 and the non-party 1/70 shares in the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the co-party 1/70 shares in this case, respectively.

B. Determination

(i) If an error or omission occurs in part of the previous registration from the time of registration to the point of time, and the registration is not originally inconsistent with the substantive relationship, the registration to revise or supplement the relevant part of the previous registration so as to correct it. According to Article 32(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, where a registrar finds that the error or omission in the registration is due to the mistake of the registrar, he/she shall correct it ex officio without delay (if there is a third party in the case of the ex officio correction registration, he/she must consent to the third party in the case of the registration).

B. According to the records, the buyer of the apartment of this case, as alleged by the applicant, appears to have acquired or acquired the land of this case according to the same ratio of share as that of each household. However, the content of the right stated in the register itself is interpreted by the entry in the register, regardless of whether it is an actual relation, and as shown in the attached Form, it is different from the entry in the register as to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, but as long as the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 are separately stated and there is no co-ownership share, it can be deemed that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, including the non-party 2, share, share of 1/700 is jointly owned at the same ratio of the land of this case. Thus, the purport that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, including the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, share of this case can not be interpreted to be jointly owned by the purport that the share of this case is jointly owned.

Article 32(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, stating 1/701 co-ownership shares of 701 applicants, non-party 1 and non-party 2, in the process of transferring the former registry to the current registry, cannot be deemed to fall under the case where a mistake was made due to the mistake of the registry officer, that is, the reason for ex officio registration of correction under Article 32(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and further, it shall not be deemed that the shares of non-party 1 and non-party 2 were applied for 1/700 in total at the time of the registration of transfer of ownership, or only one of the non-party 1 and non-party 2 applied for as co-owner, and therefore, it shall be deemed that the former registry was written in mistake

3. Conclusion

Thus, the decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and the appeal of this case is dismissed.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Sung-gu (Presiding Judge)