Whether a possessor who was a person entitled to a provisional registration of a building may refuse a request for surrender by a person registered as an owner after the provisional registration is illegally cancelled.

Even if a possessor of a building was a person entitled to a provisional registration of the building and the provisional registration was illegally cancelled without any cause, and is in the position to recover the cancelled provisional registration and to make the principal registration based thereon. In such cases, even if a person who was registered as an owner after the above provisional registration was illegally cancelled bears the obligation to accept the procedure for recovery registration, the person entitled to a provisional registration cannot assert the effect of acquiring a real right against a third party, and thus, unless the principal registration procedure is implemented based on such provisional registration, the person entitled to a provisional registration cannot deny the ownership of the person registered as the above owner and thus, his/her claim

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

Man-doing water

Ob uniform et al. and two others

1. In the order of 30 square meters on the ship (B) which connects the Plaintiff with each point of (30 square meters on the 1st floor of the building listed in the attached list, the order of the defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant defendant Kim Jong-hwan's 22 square meters on the 22nd floor of the building listed in the attached list, and the part (c) which connects each point of (c) "the same drawing indication", "the same drawing indication", "the", "the", and "the part (d) of the ship which connects each point to 32.45 square meters in sequence.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

The fact that the registration of ownership transfer has been made in the name of the plaintiff with respect to the building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the "building in this case"), and the fact that the Defendants possessed each part of the entries in the order of this case among the buildings in this case does not have any dispute between the parties, so the Defendants are liable to specify each part of the above possession among the buildings in this case presumed to be the owner of the building in this case

As to the plaintiff's filing of the above order of possession, the defendants filed a provisional registration to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer based on the promise to sell and purchase the name of Kim Chuncheon on June 1, 1983 as to the building in this case. However, as to the building in this case, the non-party 1, who was the owner of the building in the registry of this case, forged all documents necessary for the cancellation of the above provisional registration, illegally cancelled the above provisional registration, and subsequently the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the plaintiff was completed in the name of the non-party 2. Accordingly, the above provisional registration in the name of defendant Kim Chuncheon was cancelled without any reason without the intention of the right holder, and thus, the provisional registration is not invalidated, and thus, the right holder of the provisional registration is not obliged to accept the above provisional registration for restoration of the provisional registration without any reason. In this case, the plaintiff's claim that the above provisional registration was cancelled for the above provisional registration to the non-party 271, as the third party with an interest in the provisional registration, and thus his claim that the above provisional registration should be cancelled for restoration of ownership.

Therefore, in this case where there is no assertion or proof as to the defendants' legitimate right to possess each of the above possession parts of the building of this case, the defendants are obligated to order each of the above possession parts to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking each of the above order is justified, and the lawsuit costs are assessed against the defendants who lost, and it is so decided as per Disposition with a declaration of provisional execution.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judge Dog Charter