Whether there is an error by a registrar on the right to a site

In the case of this case, the registration of this case in the name of the defendants, which is contrary to the plaintiff's ownership on the register of the land of this case, can be claimed for the cancellation of all of the registration of dispute of this case because it is deemed that

Suwon District Court Decision 2015Kadan30526 Cancellation, etc. of the transfer registration of ownership

Private police officer:

Overseas of the Republic of Korea

March 15, 2018

August 23, 2018

1. The plaintiff

(w) As to the share of 15.2 out of 46.7/1091 of each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet

2) The defendant Republic of Korea completed the attachment registration pursuant to the receipt No. 167918 of October 30, 1998 by the same registry office.

x. As to the shares of 15.2 out of 31.5/1091 of each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet

Each cancellation registration procedure shall be implemented.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are borne by each party, and the costs incurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendants except the said Defendants are borne by each other.

1. Basic facts

The following facts do not conflict between the Republic of Korea and the remaining Defendants except the Plaintiff and the aforementioned Defendants. They can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in each of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 22 (including each number), and no other counter-proof exists.

(a) Details of registration of transfer of ownership;

1) The land listed in the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "land No. 1 of this case") is on December 31, 1973, and the land listed in the attached list No. 2 of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "land No. 2 of this case"), and the land listed in the attached list No. 2 of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "land No. 1 and No. 2 of this case") was registered in the name of DD on July 2, 1975.

2) DD newly constructed a building of the first and third floor above the ground of this case on the ground of this case, and completed each registration of ownership transfer for the total of about 80 buyers from September 11, 1982 to July 21, 1983 for about 485.12/100 to about 80 buyers.

3) Around December 10, 1983, DD had completed the establishment registration of a mortgage on the portion of 605.88 percent of the remaining shares of the instant land, which is the remainder of the instant land, with the establishment registration of a mortgage over the maximum debt amount of 16 million won in the E-mortgage.

4)DD on April 17, 1984, completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of KimF, with respect to 9.9 shares out of 605.88 shares, which are the remainder of the instant land, in the name of the KimF.

5) On April 24, 1985, upon the application of EE for voluntary auction by the said mortgagee, the procedure of voluntary auction began with respect to the remaining shares of 605.88 percent of the remaining shares of the land in this case (including the shares of the non-party KimF).

6) On July 29, 1985, DD completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of GG Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "GG Construction") with respect to 350.4 shares out of 595.98 shares (on the other hand, equivalent to the remaining shares transferred to the above KimF) among the instant land.

7) GG construction newly constructed 24 apartment units of the 4,5th apartment units on the 1st underground floor and the 3rd apartment building on the 3rd apartment building on the ground of the instant land (hereinafter collectively referred to as “each apartment unit of this case”). On June 4, 1986, GG construction completed the registration of site ownership on the 350.4 equity out of the 595.98 equity among the instant land owned by it for the said newly built apartment units.

8) On March 20, 1987, Park H was awarded a successful bid of 9.9 shares in KimFF and DD shares 595.98 shares and 605.88 shares in the instant land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on November 28, 1987, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of GG Construction on the same day is ex officio.

(3) have been cancelled.

9) On November 22, 198, the registry official cancelled the registration of a site ownership on the GG construction portion under paragraph (7) due to the change of a site ownership on November 2, 198, and on the registry of the land of this case, the contents registered on the apartment of this case prior to the above date are changed to that of a right to site ownership. The registration officer transferred the registration of each apartment of this case pursuant to Article 102-4 (2) of the former Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 10580, Apr. 12, 201; hereinafter the same shall apply), and even after the change of a real right, when a new registration of each apartment of this case, such as a change of a right to site ownership, was entered in the registry of each apartment of this case with the same content as that of each apartment of this case (hereinafter referred to as "registration entered in the registry of the land of this case and a subsequent registration," as follows.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. Whether a registration officer's mistake on a right which is a site ownership is dealt with

According to the above facts, since the completion of the ownership transfer registration for shares 350/1091 out of the land in this case owned by DD was effective after the voluntary decision to commence the sale of shares 605.8/1091, including the above shares, the seizure of the above shares became effective after the voluntary decision to commence the sale of shares 605.8/100 of DD's shares became effective. As long as the ownership transfer registration for the above shares was made under the name of GaH on November 28, 1987 under the name of GaH on March 20, 1987 due to the successful bid on March 20, 1987, the ownership transfer registration under the name of GG construction cannot be set up against the successful bidder, and the ownership transfer registration for the above shares becomes subject to ex officio entrustment, and the right to the GG construction becomes extinct. Thus, as a registered public official, the registration falls under the case where "the purport that the right to the site becomes extinct" under Article 102-2 (3) of the former Registration of Real Estate Act.

B. Whether a request for cancellation of the registration of the dispute in this case was made

The registration of the dispute in this case is a registration which is entirely inconsistent with the substantive relations and is not consistent with all of the registrations.

On the other hand, when there is an error or omission in registration due to a mistake by a registry official, the ex officio correction by the registry official shall be permitted only when the error or omission is obvious and the registry official's own approval thereof is recognized. However, if an application for registration was discarded for long time, or if the registry official does not recognize that the registration official's own fault is obviously wrong, the registration official may file a lawsuit against the registry official who asserts that the registration is valid, against the court for cancellation of the registration such as transfer of ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 62Da252 delivered on February 19, 1963, Supreme Court Decision 62Da252 delivered on February 19, 1963). Accordingly, even in this case, it shall be deemed that there is an error in all the registration matters, and thus, the mother registration of this case in the name of

(2) The cancellation may be requested from both parties.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim against the remaining defendants except the defendant leCC is well-grounded, all of them are accepted. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant leleCC is without merit, and all of them are dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea shall be against the principle of sharing the costs of lawsuit, and it is unreasonable to impose the costs of lawsuit on the Defendants, who do not dispute that the instant lawsuit was caused by the mistake of a registry officer, not the Defendants. Therefore