[1] The requirements for the claim for ownership transfer registration for the restoration of the true title

[2] The case holding that the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer cannot be claimed for the restoration of the true title

[1] A claim for registration of transfer of ownership for the restoration of a true title of registration is filed under one’s own name, or a true owner who acquired ownership by law seeks to implement the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership for the restoration of a true title of registration, based on ownership, by means of restoring the title of registration.

[2] The case holding that the registration of ownership transfer under Gap's name, which was completed by the defendant, who is the title holder of the registration of ownership preservation whose cause is null and void, for the correction thereof, is valid in line with the substantive legal relationship, and where the defendant issued a seal imprint certificate without delegation, and if the defendant again transferred the ownership registration to the defendant, the registration is valid in the absence of special circumstances, and the plaintiff, the heir of Gap, is not the owner entitled to seek the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the restoration of the real name.

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 186 of the Civil Code

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Meu20026 delivered on December 21, 1990 (Gong1991, 578) Supreme Court Decision 92Da48970 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong193Sang, 1072)

Park Byung-gun (Law Firm Hong, Attorneys Kim Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Park Young-young (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Choi Young-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Chuncheon District Court Decision 96Na765 delivered on October 4, 1996

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The court below held on September 16, 1949 that the forest land of this case was owned by the plaintiff's right holder, the plaintiff's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right holder's right.

The claim for ownership transfer registration for the restoration of the true title of the Dok-dong shall be filed in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, and the ownership transfer registration made in the name of the defendant Park Jae-young shall be valid unless there are other circumstances that make it invalid, even if the registration of ownership transfer made in the name of the defendant for the correction of the forest of this case was completed in accordance with the facts established by the court below. Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer made in the name of the defendant Park Jae-young shall be valid unless there are other circumstances that make it invalid, even if the registration of ownership transfer made in the name of the real owner for the restoration of the real title of this case was invalid.

However, the facts established by the court below alone cannot be readily concluded that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant was invalid by itself, and even after examining the records, there is no particular assertion or proof as to other circumstances that can be recognized as null and void by the above registration of ownership transfer. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as the owner entitled to seek the implementation of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true name in relation to the above forest and field.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that otherwise determined is erroneous in the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to registration in accordance with the substantive relations, and the judgment of the requirements for the request for ownership transfer registration for the restoration of the true title of registration, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Final Young-young (Presiding Justice)