The case holding that it is against the interested party seeking a cancellation of registration

If Party A obtained the final and conclusive judgment and consent to cancel each registration of ownership transfer of Party B and C with respect to the land for which the ownership transfer registration has been completed in the future of Party B, the provisional registration is made in the name of Party B, and the provisional registration is to be cancelled in the name of Party B after the ownership transfer registration.

Article 186 of the Civil Act; Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 169(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant’s Attorney Final Confession

Suwon District Court Decision 86Na584 delivered on February 12, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

The judgment of the court below is justified and acceptable in light of the records, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, as pointed out in its reasoning, since the provisional registration of this case, which was made in the future of the defendant, was made without any cause, in preparation for the loss of the above non-party 1 while the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the non-party 1 is pending, and the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant agreed to cancel the provisional registration of this case to the plaintiff at the end of March 1984 and the end of six months after the end of June, 1984.

With respect to the second ground:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff exercised the right to cancel provisional registration of this case against the defendant of this non-party 2 on March 1984 on the ground that he did not prove the plaintiff's right to claim cancellation of provisional registration against the defendant of this non-party 2 by subrogation of the right to claim cancellation of provisional registration of this case. The records reveal that the plaintiff sold the land of this case to the above non-party 2 and transferred the registration of this case to the above two parties, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit to cancel the registration of this case against the above non-party 1, and the judgment of constructive confession against the above non-party 2 was accepted. Thus, the plaintiff has only the right to claim cancellation of the registration of this case against the above non-party 2, and it does not have the right to exercise his right by subrogation, unless there are any other circumstances. Thus, the judgment below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as pointed out in the same purport.

However, even if there was a domestic agreement on the argument that the court below agreed to the Plaintiff to cancel the provisional registration of this case at the end of March and at the end of six months after the end of 1984, the court below held that the Plaintiff, who is not an interested party in the registration of the land of this case, has no interest in the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the provisional registration of this case, as seen earlier, as long as the Plaintiff received a final and conclusive judgment and approval that can cancel the provisional registration of this case by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 as to the land of this case, there is a benefit to seek the cancellation of the provisional registration of this case under the name of the Defendant, which was made after the ownership transfer registration of this case, as seen in the above, since the above judgment of the court below is an interest in seeking the cancellation of the provisional registration of this case, the above judgment of the court below is a misunderstanding of legal principles with respect to the interested party seeking the cancellation registration of this case, as seen in the ground of appeal No. 1, there is no evidence recognizing

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)