Whether the registration which becomes null and void due to a defect in the substantive relations may be useful in the case of being equipped with the substantive relations of the same content as the previous registration.

Where the parties agree to use the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage that was invalidated and continue a new transaction, if there is no third party interested in the register prior to the utilization agreement, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage shall be valid.

Articles 185 and 369 of the Civil Act

Gabin iron

Long-term Intervention

Gwangju District Court Decision 63Na77 delivered on July 16, 1963

The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 by Defendant Attorney

In light of the reasoning of the judgment, the court below decided that the contract to establish a mortgage was cancelled on August 1, 1962 between the parties to the contract, which was already established and traded, and that the former contract was liquidated. Thus, even if the registration of a mortgage was not cancelled, it cannot be recognized that the former contract would be invalid until the registration of the decision on the mortgage was made useful. However, in order to be effective, there is a lack of substantive legal relationship corresponding to the registration stated in the original judgment, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the establishment of a new contract to establish a mortgage would be effective only after the establishment of the original judgment, and thus, it is reasonable to view that the original registration would be invalid for the first time after the establishment of a new contract to establish a mortgage, unless the original judgment satisfies the substantive effective requirements after the establishment of a new contract to establish a mortgage, and that the original registration would be invalid for the first time after the establishment of a new contract to establish a mortgage would be invalid for the reason that it would have been invalid for the first time due to the lack of substantive legal relationship.

[Judgment of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Na-Jap (Presiding Judge) Dog-Jak and Mag-Jak, the maximum Magman Mag-ri