Where a principal registration based on a provisional registration for preserving a right to claim a transfer becomes effective, the transfer of ownership becomes effective.

A provisional registration is only effective to preserve the order of priority in the principal registration, and if the principal registration is completed later, the interim disposition taken after the provisional registration is retroactively to the time when the order of priority in the principal registration is registered, and the interim disposition taken after the provisional registration becomes effective in the order after the principal registration is registered, and it does not take place retroactively to the time when the change in real rights by the principal

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Jong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na2287 delivered on November 24, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's attorney is examined.

The provisional registration is only effective to preserve the order of priority of the principal registration. If the principal registration is completed after the date of the provisional registration, the interim disposition made after the provisional registration is retroactively to the time of the provisional registration, and it does not take effect retroactively to the time of the provisional registration, and the effect of any change in real rights by the principal registration is retroactively to the time of the provisional registration. According to the records, the provisional registration was made on February 4, 1975 after the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the site of this case and the provisional registration was completed on November 10, 1979 on November 10, 1979 for the preservation of the right to claim ownership transfer, and the principal registration based on the provisional registration of this case was completed on November 10, 1979. However, although the provisional registration was completed in the above non-party 2 and non-party 3, the right to claim the rent for the site of this case before the completion of the principal registration was completed, and the non-party 2 and non-party 3 did not have any errors in the legal principles as to the validity of the provisional registration.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal by the same attorney.

Therefore, the court below is just in holding that the non-party 1's claim for rent concerning the site of this case is valid, since the amount of the non-party 1 is not specified, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the assignment of claim. Thus, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the assignment of claim.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)