If any error or omission in registration occurs due to the error of a registered public official, the method of correction thereof.

If there is an error or omission in registration due to the error or omission of a registry official, the ex officio correction of the registry official shall be permitted only when the error or omission is obvious and the registry official's own approval thereof is recognized. However, if an application for registration has long been discarded as preservation period or the registry official's own fault is not recognized as obvious error, the cancellation may be demanded to the court against the titleholder who asserts that the registration is valid.

Article 72 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Plaintiff 1 and four others

Defendant

Gwangju District Court (62Na155)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are as shown in the attached Form.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined as follows. The reason why the seal of title No. 1-2 of title No. 1-2 of title No. 1 is interpreted to the effect that there is a person who uses a registration certificate at the registry, not a simple seal, but a person who uses it at the time of entering the registration certificate at the registry, and the legal representative at the court below on August 14, 1962 stated that there is a concurrent seal on this point, so the theory of lawsuit is without merit. According to the evidence and its explanation at the time of the original judgment, it is reasonable to accept the error of the public official's official's office work such as the court below's approval, and the defendant's assertion on June 5, 1947, 321-3 of title No. 321 of title No. 321 of title No. 321 of title No. 321 of title No. 321 of title No. 321 of title No. 5 of the forest in this case.

According to Article 72 of the Registration of Real Estate Act on the third ground of the same reason, if there is an error or omission in the registration by the mistake of a registry official, the registry official shall correct the registration with the permission of the chief of the district court, but it cannot be interpreted that the purport of this remedy is that the ex officio rectification by the registry official is prohibited by the law on the ground that the error is obvious, and that the ex officio rectification by the registry official is allowed only when the registry official itself recognizes it. However, if the registration application is abandoned for long time, or if the registry official voluntarily denies the registration as the preservation period, or if the registry official does not recognize that the registration is obviously excessive, it cannot be interpreted that the cancellation can be urged against the registry official who asserts that the registration is valid, in the judicial court.

As above, this appeal is without merit in its entirety, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 400, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Lee Il-il (Presiding Judge)