The case holding that even if a registration has any defect not claimed by the person liable for registration, it shall be valid in accordance with the substantive relationship.

If the transferor, based on the contract for the transfer of ownership of real estate, has the transferor acquire the whole control over the target real estate in fact to the transferee, the registration in the name of the transferee shall be valid as the registration consistent with the substantive relationship even if it is inconsistent with the application of the person liable for registration of the lessor.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 7 others were minors, and thus, Defendant 2, who is the legal representative parent, Defendant 2’s attorney Choi Jong-young

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na1077 delivered on January 15, 1976

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

Even after examining the description of Eul's 4 in detail, it cannot be argued that Eul's 4 is a forgery by the same document. Therefore, it is unreasonable to discuss the description of Eul's 4 on the premise that Eul's 1 is a forgery.

With respect to the second ground:

The court below recognized that this real estate was originally owned by Nonparty 1, who was originally owned by the Plaintiff’s deceased father, but around April 1, 1955, the non-party 2 was donated to the above non-party to use the land as the land site of the non-party 2, the telegraph of the non-party 2, the non-party 1, who was the president of the Madhot High School, and that the non-party 1, who was the above non-party 1, donated this land to the above non-party 2 for the purpose of using it as the above school site. The above recognition was made around April 1, 1955, and the non-party 1 delivered this land to the above non-party 2 and delivered the written consent of donation to the non-party 2 on November 7, 1962. Thus, it can not be said that there was any defect in the rules of evidence or there is any violation of the rules of evidence.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney together with the 1,2, and 3 points of appeal.

As stipulated in Article 186 of the Civil Code that the acquisition, loss, and transfer of real right to real estate by a juristic act does not take effect unless the registration is made. Therefore, in the case where a contract is made for the gift, sale, or transfer of real right to real estate, the effect of the transfer of real right shall not take place unless the registration is made.

However, in realizing the right to demand a registration between the parties to a contract for the purpose of transferring the ownership of domestic real estate and the parties to the contract, there is no problem such as load, etc. in law, and therefore, if the transferor does not have any justifiable reason such as refusing the performance of his obligation, the transferor shall take the place in the contract and have the transferee acquire the entire control over the real estate, and as such, in relation to the transferor, the transferee shall be deemed to have acquired all the rights such as the use, profit, disposal, etc. which are incorporated into the concept of ownership and achieved the substantial contents, unless there are special circumstances, the transferee shall be deemed to be legally unable avoid the substantive relationship between the transferor and the transferee. Thus, in a relatively disputing relationship between the two parties, even if the ownership is prior to the registration, the ownership shall be deemed to be transferred to the transferee, and if the registration corresponds to the above two parties, it shall not be deemed to be null and void merely because it does not necessarily have any reason for the registration to be registered, and if the registration conforms with the substantive relation, it shall be included in the registration as above.

Unless there are special circumstances, the act of the transferor which caused the actual relationship between the two parties is generally deemed to be a raw milk for the intent of the person liable for registration, which was potential and dynamic at the time of the juristic act for change in real rights such as a contract for transfer of ownership, etc., and is to realize and confirm the intention of the person liable for registration. Thus, registration conforming to the real relation between the parties concerned under the above condition is not based on the intention of the person liable for registration. Thus, even if the registration is not applied for by the person liable for registration, it is not based on the intention of the person liable for registration, and it is not necessary or unnecessary to recognize the person liable for registration when the person liable for registration requests cancellation).

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that accepted the same purport shall not be deemed to have erred in law.

According to the records, this land can be seen as being delivered to Defendant Mine Institute through Nonparty 1, who was transferred to Defendant Mine Institute through Nonparty 2, and used it for Defendant Mine Institute’s practical farm, etc. However, according to the records and detailed examination of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the above deceased Nonparty 1 gave a donation to Nonparty 2, who was the president of the school of this case, so that it can be used as the site of the high civic school as seen above. After the death of the non-party, the plaintiff, the heir of this case, denied the above deceased non-party 1’s donation to the above non-party 2, refused to perform the duty to transfer ownership, and refused to remove the above school building constructed on that land, and the dispute was raised by seeking removal of the above school building constructed on that land, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the above transfer registration on the premise that the above dispute would be settled, and it can not be found that the plaintiff violated the above facts and rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the above donation on the ground of the deceased non-party 1’s donation.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and therefore dismissed in accordance with the provisions of Articles 400, 395, and 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. The burden of litigation costs is governed by Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act, and is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Min Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)