Whether there is a benefit to seek implementation of the procedure for transfer registration of ownership against the nominal owner on the prior registry where a person who has completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the registration of preservation on the register after the registration of transfer of ownership is null and void among duplicate preservation registrations with different nominal owners.

The registration of ownership preservation in the name of the non-party and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the non-party Gap was made with respect to the real estate in dispute, and the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the plaintiff was made invalid on the ground that the registration in the name of the plaintiff Gap was made differently from the registration in the name of the non-party Gap, but the registration in the name of the plaintiff was made valid on the grounds that if the plaintiff did not have any interest in the real estate up to that time, the registration in the name of the plaintiff was made in accordance with the substantive legal relationship and became effective on the other hand, and the registration in the name of the defendant Gap which was made in the name of the defendant Eul became null and void. Thus, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant Eul, which was based on the registration, shall also be cancelled in the form of invalidation, and if the name of the owner is made in the name of his name, the plaintiff can request the closure

Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jae-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2961, 87Da453 Decided November 27, 1990 (No. 23, No. 1991, Nov. 178, 1990), Supreme Court en banc Decision 89Meu12398 Decided November 27, 1990 (No. 350 No. 1991, Nov. 189)

【Court Decision 91Da25116 decided Oct. 8, 1991 (Gong1991, 2693)

Man-Man-man

Yellow Tae-gu et al.

1. As to the plaintiff:

A. On September 24, 198, the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership, which was made by the Daejeon District Court No. 53263 on September 24, 198, with respect to the real estate listed in the [Attachment] List;

B. The procedure for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, which was made under Section 53264 on the same day at the same court’s same date, with respect to the real estate stated in the same list;

C. On May 16, 1986, the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription on the real estate indicated in the same list among the defendant Pap Pap Pu Pap Pu Pu Pu Pu Pu Pu

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

The plaintiff is selected from the judgment as referred to in paragraph (1) of the same Article and the defendant Pyeong Pulchim Pulchim Co., Ltd., the above defendant will implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on sale on each real estate listed in the separate sheet on May 16, 196.

The costs of lawsuit were assessed against the above defendant.

The above list No. 1, No. 4, No. 5, No. 2, and No. 5, No. 65, and No. 15, No. 22, No. 24, No. 7, No. 61, and No. 61 were recorded on the same clan No. 2, No. 360, No. 96, No. 166, and No. 96, No. 966, No. 9666, Nov. 2, 196, which were recorded on the same clan No. 1, No. 2, No. 360, No. 96666, Nov. 2, 193). The plaintiff still received the above list No. 2, No. 360, No. 9666, Nov. 16, 196 (the title of the real estate of this case) for the same clan No. 2, No. 360, No. 16663,

According to the above facts, on May 16, 1986, when 20 years have passed since the plaintiff purchased the real estate in this case on May 16, 196, and 20 years have passed since the plaintiff occupied it in peace and openly with the intention of possession, and until then, there was no assertion or proof that there was a person having an interest in the register on the above real estate, the above transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff on the register was effective registration, even if it is a duplicate registration made by a person without authority, at the same time as the expiration of the acquisition period, consistent with the substantive legal relationship and became effective registration. Meanwhile, the above transfer registration in the name of the defendant clan, which was made on the register on the line of the real estate in this case, was invalidated by a duplicate registration that is not consistent with the substantive relationship, and all the above transfer registration in the name of the defendant Hwang Tae and Yangyang, which was made on the basis thereof, shall be null and void (Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2568 Decided March 22, 198

As to the plaintiff's application for the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff on the attached list (1), (2), prior to the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership as to the real estate, prior to the expiration of the expiration of the prescription period of each of the above list, the defendants, even though the prescription period for the plaintiff on each of the real estate stated on the attached list was completed, since the defendant clan confirmed the sale in the name of the defendant clan after the procedure for transfer of ownership was completed, each of the above transfer registration on the register of the defendant clan was legitimate, since the obligation of transfer of ownership to the plaintiff was already returned to impossible execution, the above obligation of the defendant clan against the plaintiff cannot be complied with the plaintiff's application of this case on the premise of the existence of the above registration obligation. However, since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant clan, prior to the declaration of ownership transfer as to the expiration of the prescription period of the plaintiff on all of the real estate in this case, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant clan No. 1, No. 2, and No. 97 of the above plaintiff's.

Therefore, against the plaintiff, the defendant Hwang-tae is liable for the registration of transfer of ownership in its name as to the real estate listed in the attached list (1) and the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership in its name as to the real estate listed in (2) of the same list, and the defendant clan is liable for the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership as to each real estate listed in the same list, and the registration procedure of transfer of ownership due to completion of acquisition of ownership as to each real estate listed in the same list. Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition by application of Articles 89 and 93

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Jong-chul (Presiding Judge)