Whether a request for cancellation registration may be made to a person who has registered under the name of the deceased.

Where registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the name of a person without permission, such person shall not file a request for cancellation of registration with the person who is not the nominal owner on the register

Article 28 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da1881, 1882 delivered on November 9, 1971

Anti-Agricultural and Forestry Partnership

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Central District Court (65Ga8190, 66Ga3719) in the first instance trial

Supreme Court Decision 69Da443, 444 Decided July 28, 1970

The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial against the defendant 1 (the part of the claim for cancellation of the preservation registration in the name of the non-party 1) is dismissed.

The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

The plaintiff's attorney extended the claim against the defendant 1 at the trial, and the defendant 2 fulfilled the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the sale on June 26, 1965, which was completed as No. 9009 on June 26, 1965 with respect to the real estate in the attached list (A) on the attached list (B), and the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the sale on June 25, 1965, and the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-party 1, which was completed as No. 6025 on August 26, 1964 with respect to the real estate in the attached list (A)(C), which was completed as No. 6025 on March 10, 1964.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants in the first and second instances.

The legal representative of the Defendants shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is difficult for the plaintiff 1 to transfer the above real estate to the non-party 1, 2, and 3, and the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the non-party 1 (the original court) as stated in the separate sheet No. 1, and the defendant 2 can be recognized that the ownership transfer registration was made again in the name of the defendant 1, as to the real estate (Ga) recorded in the separate sheet No. 2. The plaintiff's legal representative constituted the real estate in the separate sheet No. 239 on August 20, 1931, which was originally distributed to the non-party 1, the plaintiff 2, and the defendant 1, who acquired the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1, the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the defendant 1, who acquired the above real estate under the name of the non-party 1, had no ownership transfer registration for the real estate in the separate sheet No. 3.

Next, Defendant 1’s attorney asserted that Defendant 1 sought cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership in Nonparty 1’s name against the above Defendant, since Defendant 1 had a registration of preservation of ownership in the future of Nonparty 1, a person without permission, the Plaintiff’s legal representative, but Defendant 1, who is not the nominal owner on the register, is not obligated to cancel registration in the above Nonparty’s name even if Nonparty 1 is disqualified (the Plaintiff’s above assertion cannot be the person liable for registration of cancellation of the same registration).

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection shall be accepted within the above recognized scope and the claim extended in the trial shall be dismissed without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just and without merit, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 96, 89, 92, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Go Youngk (Presiding Judge)