A. The meaning of the person responsible for registration

(b) Cases where the person is not responsible for registration;

(a) Unless prescribed otherwise by any Act, the registration concerning real estate shall be applied for by the person entitled to make a registration and the person liable for registration, and the person liable for registration shall be the person who loses his right or suffers any disadvantage (the title of registration or the universal successor) by making an application for registration in the form indicated

B. Where the Defendants cancelled the registration of ownership transfer of the Plaintiffs due to the execution of final and conclusive judgment, the Defendants have abstract obligations to restore the cancelled registration of ownership transfer of the Plaintiffs, but the above cancelled registration does not have any obligation to restore the cancelled registration, but is not a person responsible for registration, nor a person eligible for registration is the Defendant.

Article 28 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294 civilianSang733 Delivered on February 28, 1962

Jin-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Jong-hun, Park Jae-chul, Park Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Lee Jae-chul, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na2800 delivered on January 17, 1979

Of the judgment of the court below, the part concerning the defendant's peripheral return and the outer return shall be reversed, and the part concerning the defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiffs' principal lawsuit concerning the same part shall be dismissed.

The total cost of the lawsuit concerning the above part shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

All appeals by Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, Defendant 2, and Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 2

The legal costs arising from the appeal by the said Defendants shall be borne by the said Defendants.

1. According to the judgment of the court below, the above list No. 1 to No. 4 (3.2 of the above list of the defendant 1 to No. 3, and No. 4 were partitioned into 1,2 of the above list No. 7) was issued, and the above Kim Jong-young was sold to the non-party 1 to the non-party 7, and the above registration No. 1 to the non-party 2 was destroyed due to the above non-party 7's cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the non-party 1 to the non-party 7, and the above non-party 2's cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the non-party 7, the above non-party 1 to the non-party 7, the above non-party 2's cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the non-party 1 to the above non-party 7, the above non-party 7's cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the non-party 1 to the above non-party 2's title of the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 2's title title 7.

(1) The Seoul High Court Decision 71Na307, Seoul High Court Decision 73Na307, which ordered cancellation of the transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiffs, has become final and conclusive by a new judgment 73Na10, this Court Decision 73Na10, which ordered cancellation of the above registration, was retroactively cancelled, and the registration of cancellation, which was based on this decision, is invalid registration that lacks the cause of closure even if the registration itself was closed due to the closure of the registration itself, and thus, Defendant 1, who cancelled the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff 1 and 2 as to the land in this case as to the land in this case as to the land in this case, is obligated to implement the procedure of restoration registration for the number of plaintiffs

(2) The registration of cancellation of each transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiffs was completed without any cause. The registration of cancellation of each transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiffs shall be deemed to have been held by the plaintiffs. The registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant Kim Dong-dong as to the land in this case shall be cancelled all of the registration of ownership in the names of the plaintiffs, and the registration is closed and followed by a new registration paper after the registration is closed. However, the registration is invalid because it is based on the above registration of preservation of ownership, which lacks any cause that does not correspond to the substantive legal relationship, and the registration is also null and void in the order of the above registration, and accordingly, the registration in the name of the defendant Lee Dong-dong, the defendant Lee Jong-hee, the defendant Lee Jong-hee, and the defendant Kim Jong-hee shall be held liable for cancellation of the registration in the name of the plaintiff for the number of cases in the name of the plaintiffs.

2. As to the judgment on the grounds of appeal (including the grounds of appeal) (excluding the part ordering the restoration registration of ownership transfer registration cancelled in the name of the plaintiffs with respect to the outer, outer, and the part ordering the restoration registration of ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiffs in the following ex officio determination), and as the register on the land of this case was lost in the column of 6.25 Dong-dong by the record, the non-party private-private-private-private-private-public-private-public-public-public-public-public-public-public-public-private land entered into the preservation registration, and as to the land of this case, the court below's final judgment that ordered the cancellation of each ownership transfer registration of the plaintiffs by the execution of the final judgment (the above 71Na307) was sentenced to the court below's final judgment that ordered the cancellation of each ownership transfer registration of the plaintiffs by the execution of the final judgment, and that the registration was closed and completed separately, and that the registration of preservation registration of the defendant Lee Dong-dong's land was revoked and revoked by the above 3717 of this judgment and this judgment.

However, according to the above 71Na307 decision, it is clear that Defendant Annbama had ordered cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership as to the land 1,2, and each of the plaintiffs' number of lands 4, and Defendant Annbama had been ordered to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership as to the land 3, by seeking cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership as to the land 1,2. As seen above, Defendant Annbama had stated that Defendant Annbama had made a judgment by seeking cancellation of each of the registration of transfer of ownership as to the land 1,2, and Defendant Annbama 3,4 as to the land 3,4, as seen above. However, this error did not affect the conclusion of the judgment as to the relation with the defendants other than Defendant Annbama and 4, and it did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and it did not err in the misapprehension of judgment or in the misapprehension of facts-finding theory as to the evidence preparation or fact-finding by the court below.

In addition, according to the records, Eul evidence Nos. 1 cited by the theory of lawsuit is against the new trial proceedings (the defendant's outer return, the defendant's 76Da2275 against the party members of the outer return. The new trial proceedings were dismissed. See the records No. 301). It is obvious that the lawsuit is pending, but it is not done on the premise that it is the judgment, the theory of violation of the rules of evidence and the theory of non-performance of reasons or non-performance of reasons cannot be seen as a tamp that is not unafilled.

Although a false final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect only between the parties to the lawsuit and their successors, it does not mean that the above final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect on other Defendants than Defendant 1, 307 (no party to the lawsuit for new trial), but it is due to execution of the above 71Na307, and even if this is cancelled on the register, it is erroneous that this is not cancelled on the above 1,2 land, and the number of the plaintiffs did not actually own ownership of the above 3 and 4 land, so the court below's decision that the above final and conclusive judgment was cancelled on the grounds that there is no other evidence to deem that the above final and conclusive judgment is valid, and that the above final and conclusive judgment was cancelled on the above 7th anniversary of the fact that the above new and conclusive judgment did not coincide with the above legal relationship, and that there is no other reason that the above final and conclusive judgment was cancelled on the grounds that the above new and conclusive judgment was cancelled on the grounds that there is no other reason to believe that the above new and conclusive judgment is invalid on the grounds that there is no other grounds for final appeal.

3. Ex officio determination on the part concerning the defendant's peripheral rupture and the peripheral rupture;

Except as otherwise provided for in Acts, registration of real estate is subject to the application of the person liable for registration and the person liable for registration (see Articles 27 and 28 of the Registration of Real Estate Act), which means the person liable for registration who loses his right or is at any disadvantage by the registration applied for in the form of registration on the registry (see Articles 27 and 28 of the Registration of Real Estate Act). Article 40 (1) 3 of the same Act requests the submission of a certificate of completion of registration concerning the right of the person liable for registration, while Article 5 (6) of the same Act stipulates that where the indication of the person liable for registration stated in the application is inconsistent with the registry, the application for registration

However, in this case, as long as the judgment was revoked, the defendants have an abstract obligation to restore the above plaintiffs' cancelled registration of transfer of ownership, but it can be deemed that whether they are liable to make the above cancelled registration is determined according to the procedure of the Registration Act.

If the Defendants do not fall under the person liable for registration under the Registration Act, they cannot apply for registration.

Even if examining the records of the case, there is no evidence that the Defendants are the registered titleholder on the register or the general successor, so they cannot be called the registration obligor to register the cancellation of registration.

Therefore, the said Defendants cannot be deemed to be unlawful on the ground that they are not eligible to be the Defendant in the claims for restoration registration of this case.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance or the judgment of the court of first instance is unlawful and unreasonable. Accordingly, the appeal is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is reversed and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the lawsuit of the same portion is dismissed, and the total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)