Whether a registrant is presumed to have shared shares in the proportion of co-ownership on the registry in case where the sum of co-ownership of a titleholder on the registry exceeds a share of co-ownership on the registry (negative)

If the registration of ownership transfer has been made, the nominal owner is presumed to be a legitimate co-owner in proportion to co-ownership, but if the total amount of co-ownership of the nominal owner in the registry exceeds the share of co-ownership, it is obvious that the registration would be improper by the itself in the registry, and thus, it cannot be presumed that the nominal owner of the registration shares shares shares shares shares are co-owned in the proportion of co-ownership on the registry, and it cannot be presumed that the share of co-ownership is co-owned shares as modified by the total amount of molecular shares.

Articles 186 and 262 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 1982, 941, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Plaintiff 1

Plaintiff 2

Plaintiff 3 and four others

Nonparty

Defendant 1 and two others (Attorney Yoon Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 4 and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na32619 delivered on June 13, 1996

The part of the judgment below regarding the land No. 1 in the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. All remaining appeals by Defendants 1, 2, and 3 are dismissed. The costs of appeal regarding the dismissed part are assessed against the same Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the assertion on the land No. 2 in the holding of the court below (hereinafter referred to as the land No. 2 in this case

In light of the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, although Plaintiff 2’s share in the land No. 2 of this case was 65.60/539, Plaintiff 2’s share in the annexed share list of the judgment below was erroneously stated 60.60/539. This constitutes a case where it is obvious that there is a clerical error in the judgment stipulated in Article 197(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and it merely constitutes a ground for the correction of the judgment, and it cannot be a ground for reversal of the judgment of the court below. Thus, we cannot accept the allegation that the judgment below erred in the misapprehension of

2. As to the allegation on the land No. 1 in the holding of the court below (hereinafter referred to as the land No. 1 in this case)

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, after compiling the adopted evidence, found the facts that each share transfer registration has been made in the name of the plaintiffs, succeeding intervenors and defendants 1, 2, 3, and 4 in the same proportion as the shares stated in the separate sheet in the judgment of the court below as to the land No. 1 of this case. Thus, the land No. 1 of this case is presumed to be co-owned in the same proportion as the shares stated in the separate sheet in the judgment of the court below. However, since the land No. 1 of this case was registered in excess of 1,38.02 as the total share of co-owned shares in the register is 1,38.02, and its share exceeds 1,319.7, the actual share of the registered titleholder's co-ownership in the register shall be revised to 1,388.02, without having the share of co-owned shares in the register, and on this premise, it is ordered that the land No. 1 of this case should be divided in proportion

However, if the registration of transfer of ownership has been made, the registrant shall be presumed to be a legitimate co-owner in proportion to his co-ownership, but if the total amount of co-ownership by the registrant in the register exceeds the share of co-ownership, it is apparent that the registration is false by the entries in the register itself, and thus, it cannot be presumed that the registrant of the registration shares shares shares co-ownership in the proportion of co-ownership on the register before considering the invalidity of the registration (see Supreme Court Decision 82Meu134, Sept. 14, 1982). In addition, it cannot be presumed that the share of co-ownership is co-ownership modified by the molecule's total share of co-ownership.

Nevertheless, the court below did not have any examination as to whether the registration of the co-ownership shares in the land No. 1 of this case, in which the aggregate of co-ownership shares in the register exceeds the division mother, becomes null and void, and recognized that the registration titleholder as co-ownership shares in the ratio of co-ownership revised by only the division of co-ownership shares in the register as the molecule's aggregate. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to co-ownership and this affected the judgment. Thus, the part pointing this out in the grounds of appeal

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part concerning the land of this case among the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeals by Defendants 1, 2, and 3 are all dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal regarding the dismissed 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 Cho Chang-hun (Presiding Justice)