Effect on a third party who has an interest in a registration for restoration which fails to meet the requirements under Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act (Invalidity)

According to the provisions of Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, where an application for restoration of cancelled registration is filed and a third party who has an interest in the registration exists, a written consent or a certified copy of the court judgment against it is required to be attached to the application. Therefore, a restoration registration which fails to meet such requirements is invalid in relation to a third party who

Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da1575 delivered on July 22, 1980 (Gong1980, 13028) Supreme Court Decision 82Meu168 delivered on March 8, 1983 (Gong1983, 652)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) 1 and four others

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 99Na9755 delivered on July 26, 2000

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

According to the provisions of Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, where an application for recovery of cancelled registration is filed and a third party who has an interest in the registration exists, a written consent thereof or a certified copy of a court judgment that can oppose it shall be attached to the application. Thus, a registration not satisfied such requirements shall be null and void in relation to a third party who has an interest in the registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 79Da1575, Jul. 22, 1980; 82Da1168, Mar. 8, 1983).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts of the judgment based on employment evidence, and judged that the registration of recovery of the provisional registration of this case is null and void in relation to the plaintiff and the designated parties, since the registration of recovery of the provisional registration of this case was made without a written consent of the plaintiff and the designated parties or a certified copy of the judgment which can be asserted against this, although the plaintiff and the designated parties are a third party with interest in the registration of recovery of the provisional registration of this case at the time of the defendant's application for the registration of recovery of the provisional registration of this case, the registration of recovery of the provisional registration of this case is invalid in relation to the plaintiff and the designated parties, and that the registration of recovery of the provisional registration of this case is null and void in relation to the plaintiff and the designated parties, and the registration of recovery of the provisional registration of this case

In light of relevant evidence and records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts due to violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, and ground for appeal. The ground for appeal cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)