In a case where, upon filing the first suit, a registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration based on the invalidation of the cause was requested, but such request was changed to a claim for ownership transfer registration based on the cancellation of title trust after the lapse of the grace period under Article 11(4) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, whether the requirements under Article 11(4)

According to Article 11(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, while Article 11(4) of the same Act provides that a title truster shall make a real-name registration within one year from the enforcement date of the same Act, but Article 11(4) of the same Act provides that where litigation as to the real-property right is brought to a court before the enforcement date of the same Act or during the grace period, the real-name registration or the sale of the real-property right shall be made within one year from the final and conclusive judgment on the litigation. In Article 11(4) of the same Act, the real-name registration is limited to litigation as to the real-property right as above in Article 11(4) of the same Act. In Article 2 Subparag. 4 of the same Act, the real-name registration refers to the registration under the name of the title truster after the enforcement date of this Act as to the real-property right registered under the name of the title truster prior to the enforcement date of this Act. However, in light of the purport of the same Act, even if the title truster files a request for the registration of title transfer registration after cancellation.

Article 11 (1) and (4) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name;

(Attorney Kim Dong-hwan et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gongju-gun District Court Decision 201Hun-Ba48 delivered on July 1, 201

Daejeon District Court Decision 95Na8735 delivered on November 29, 1996

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In light of the records, the court below's determination that the land of this case in its decision was a title trust to the defendant is just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of facts against the rules of evidence as alleged in the ground of appeal.

The assertion is not acceptable because it contests the determination of the evidence belonging to the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below and the recognition of facts.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to Article 11(1) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, while Article 11(4) of the said Act provides that a title truster shall make a real name registration within one year from the enforcement date of the said Act, but Article 11(4) of the said Act provides that if litigation as to the real right to real estate is instituted in a court before the enforcement date of the said Act or during the grace period, the real name registration or the sale of the real right to real estate shall be made within one year from the final and conclusive judgment on the litigation. As above, Article 11(4) of the said Act provides that a litigation as to the real right to real estate shall be limited to the above real estate under the name of the title truster after the enforcement date of this Act, and Article 2 subparag. 4 of the said Act provides that a title truster shall register the real right to real estate under the name of the title trustee under the title trust agreement before the enforcement date of this Act. However, in light of the purport of the said Act, even if the title truster files a request for the transfer registration under title trust registration after the title registration becomes void.

The judgment of the court below is not adequate for the explanation of its reason, and is therefore just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The assertion is a tree of the court below's decision in other opinion, and it cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)