Restoration of registration stated in the closed register;

A registration entered in the closed register shall not be effective as the current registration and shall not be restored to the registration of transfer cancelled in the closed register because there is no legal provision regarding the procedures for recovery thereof. In such cases, the true owner (the person holding the registration of transfer cancelled in the closed register) may file a lawsuit for the registration of transfer to recover the name of the current owner on the register directly against the current owner on the closed register.

Article 26 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da1089 Decided September 25, 1979 (No. 83 of the summary of the decision, No. 622 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, No. 6295 of the Court Gazette), No. 80Da1389 Decided December 9, 1980, No. 75(3) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, No. 650 of the Court Gazette, No. 13508 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, No. 72 of the summary of the decision, No. 6508 of the court bulletin)

Plaintiff

Defendant 8 and eight others

Sungdong Branch of the Seoul District Court (79 Gohap1415)

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, based on the preliminary claim added at the trial, will implement the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership based on the restoration of the name of the registration for the real estate stated in the separate sheet.

3. Of the appeal costs, the costs between the Plaintiff and the Defendants 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 shall be borne by the said Defendants, and the costs between the Plaintiff and the other Defendants shall be borne by the Plaintiff respectively.

The Plaintiff

(A) On July 1, 1969, Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 performed the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer on the ground of co-owned property partition on July 9, 1910, which was received on July 1, 1969.

(B) The said Defendants followed the procedure for the registration of the restoration of ownership transfer in the Plaintiff’s name on the ground of sale on January 9, 1958, which was cancelled by the Seoul District Court No. 20858 on July 4, 1968 on the real estate stated in the separate sheet, and sought a judgment as stated in Paragraph 2 of the disposition (additional change in the first instance); and

(C) As to the share of 1530/8650 of the real estate recorded in the attached list, Defendant 8 performed the procedure for the cancellation registration of the share ownership transfer registration in the Sungdong District Court of Seoul, Dong Office of Registry No. 6948 of March 13, 1969, and as to the share of 982/8650 of the above real estate, Defendant 9 performed the procedure for the cancellation registration of the share ownership transfer registration in the above registration office No. 5864 of March 3, 1969.

(D) The court costs are assessed against the Defendants.

The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be revoked, and the judgment such as the claim(b), (c), and (d) shall be sought.

1. Determination on the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of registration against Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (O. 4-2), Eul evidence No. 2 (O. 4-2), Gap evidence No. 3-1, and Gap evidence No. 3-17 (O. 4-7) as to the above real estate under the name of the defendant No. 1-5 (O. 7) and the above real estate ownership transfer registration was revoked under the name of the non-party No. 1-6-2 (O. 4-7). The plaintiff's ownership transfer registration was revoked under the name of the non-party No. 1-6-7 (O. 7-7). The plaintiff's ownership transfer registration was revoked under the name of the non-party No. 1-67-7 (O. 4-7) and was thus revoked under the name of the non-party No. 1-67-1, which was established under the name of the non-party No. 1-party No. 1-677-1, 1958.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff’s forest land No. 33-7 forest land No. 1, Seongdong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number 2 omitted) prior to the above subdivision. According to the final judgment of the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of ownership transfer registration of Nonparty 2, Seoul Civil District Court Sungdong District Court No. 20858 on July 4, 1968, Seoul Civil District Court No. 180 on January 9, 1958, and the Plaintiff’s ownership transfer registration of the Plaintiff’s name was cancelled on the ground of sale on August 8, 1958, and was divided into several lots of real estate including the real estate indicated in the separate sheet. As seen earlier, the above final judgment was revoked by a suit for retrial, and thus, the Defendants sought to implement the procedure for restoration registration of ownership transfer registration of the Plaintiff’s name as preliminary claim, and the Plaintiff’s entry in the separate list No. 2, which is presumed to have not been able to have been able to have been able to have been able to have been cancelled by the original registration No. 127.

For the following preliminary claims, the registration of the real estate listed in the separate sheet as above was transferred to the Kade and closed. If the registration is transferred to the Kade, only the currently effective registration shall be transferred to the Kade, and the cancellation of the registration shall not be avoided with respect to the registration entered in the closed registry, and if it is necessary to re-transfer from the previous registry due to the cancellation of the registration after the new registration is completed, the registration official shall transfer only the registration immediately prior to the previous registry (No. 477 of the Regulations of the Supreme Court). If each ownership transfer registration of the previous registry becomes null and void on the ground of the closed registry, in order to seek cancellation of the registration of the previous registry, the registration of the previous registry shall be cancelled first after filing a lawsuit to cancel the registration, and then the true owner shall file a lawsuit again to cancel the registration after the cancellation of the registration, and as such, the real owner is forced to bring an unnecessary lawsuit corresponding to this number in order to restore the name of the plaintiff, and as such, the real owner of the ownership in the separate sheet to the plaintiff's real owner.

2. We examine the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 8 and 9

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff cancelled the judgment to implement the procedure for cancellation registration on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer, which was completed in the name of the Plaintiff, for the land of 33 Hun-Ga, Seongdongdong, Seongdong-gu, Seoul, was null and void, on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Plaintiff, and thereafter, the above real estate was divided into several lots including real estate recorded in the separate sheet. The Defendants acquired ownership from Nonparty 2 on the premise that the above real estate was owned by Nonparty 2, and the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Defendants, such as the purport of the claim. From this point of view, as seen earlier, the above judgment was cancelled by a retrial and the Defendants were transferred from the unentitled-dong, and accordingly, they sought cancellation of each share transfer registration in the name of the Defendants, as seen earlier, the registration of ownership transfer in the separate sheet was cancelled on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Defendants, as seen above, and thus, the registration of ownership transfer cannot be seen to have been made in the name of Nonparty 2.

3. If so, Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 against the Plaintiff as to the real estate stated in the attached list, and the Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 received on July 4, 1968 by the Sungdong District Court Sung-dong Office of Seoul District Court on the ground of the receipt on July 4, 1968, that the primary claim for the implementation of the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer transfer registration as of January 9, 1958 should be dismissed as there is no interest in the lawsuit. Thus, the court below is just in its conclusion, and the Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendant 9 and 8 should be rejected as there is a preliminary claim for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the restoration of the name of the same real estate added at the court below. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is just, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed as to the costs of lawsuit, and it is so decided by applying Articles 96, 92, and 93 of the Disposition.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Judge) Kim Jung-Jung Kim-kak