Effect of a provisional registration restoration registration without consent of the interested third party;

Without attaching the consent of the plaintiffs who are the third party with interest in the registration or a certified copy of the judgment recognizing such consent, however, the restoration registration of provisional registration that was cancelled against the original registration holder is invalid in relation to the relation with the plaintiffs.

Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1505 Decided September 24, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 81Da10,11 Decided June 9, 1981

Plaintiff 1 and two others, Attorneys Kim In-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and 3 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 82Na853 delivered on July 1, 1982

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

In relation to the facts duly established by the court below, without attaching the plaintiffs' consent or the certified copy of the court's decision recognizing the consent or acceptance, the registration of provisional registration in the above defendants' name which was made by the judgment of winning the procedure for recovery registration of provisional registration cancelled against the non-party shall be null and void in relation to the plaintiffs. The principal registration of ownership transfer in the above defendants' name and provisional registration in defendant 3 and defendant 4 shall also be null and void in relation to the above defendants' name. The above non-party 1 and defendant 2 shall pay the principal and interest of the above provisional registration before the recovery registration of the above provisional registration was completed, and the registration relation after the provisional registration was terminated was consistent with their substantive legal relations. Thus, considering that the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the plaintiffs from the above non-party's name was valid, the court below's determination that the plaintiffs' claim in this case was accepted in accordance with the records and the judgment of the court below is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young