Where a third party interested in the registration is liable to give consent, the validity of the registration of restoration recorded without such consent.

The application for recovery registration, which has been made without the consent of a third party interested in the registration, is illegal, but if the third party is obliged to give consent, the application for recovery registration shall be accepted, and as long as it is recorded in the register, it shall be valid by the registration in accordance with

Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

December 12, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 72Da158 Decided 72Da529 Decided February 22, 1983 (Article 75(8) of the Registration of Real Estate Act) (Article 75(23) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 75(23) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 75(23) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 75(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 71(1) through Article 7

Plaintiff

Defendant

1. The defendant ordered the plaintiff to 1,2,3,4,5,6,71 of the building in the annexed sheet which is attached in sequence 1,2,3,4,5,6,71 of each of the items listed in the annexed sheet, and ordered 37 square meters in total and 37 square meters in total, and 154 square meters in total, 154 square meters in total, and 2 square meters in total, from October 5, 1985 to the completion date of the above 593,000 per month.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Five minutes of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant.

In addition to the dismissal of 593,000 won in the disposition of Paragraph (1), the judgment and the lawsuit costs as referred to in Paragraph (1) of this Article shall be borne by the defendant and the provisional execution order.

The following facts can be acknowledged, comprehensively taking account of the following facts: Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-1-2, Eul evidence 3-1-2, Eul evidence 4-1 (each judgment, Gap evidence 2-1, and 4 are the same as Eul evidence 6-3), Gap evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 3-3 (each decision, Gap evidence 2-2 is the same as Eul evidence 7), Gap evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 3-4, Eul evidence 4-2 (each judgment confirmation, evidence 2-3 is the same as Eul evidence 9), Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 2 (a delegation document), Eul evidence 10 (a delegation document), Eul evidence 10 (a).

1. On June 7, 1977, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 18.3 million to Nonparty 1, and on June 7, 1977, in order to secure this money and future loan claims, the Plaintiff obtained registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership on the same day under the name of the Daegu District Court (the receipt number omitted) North Daegu District Court (the receipt number omitted) North Daegu District Court (the receipt number omitted) as to the building stated in the attached list owned by the Nonparty on June 7, 197 as well as its site (Tgu Seo-gu) 537, and in the administrative district at the time.

2. On August 2, 1977, Nonparty 1’s children Nonparty 1’s checks issued under Nonparty 1’s name fall short of Nonparty 1’s attorney’s lecture and forged the Plaintiff’s seal without the Plaintiff’s consent, thereby forging the power of attorney and certificate of cancellation, and delegated it to the judicial secretary, thereby cancelling the above provisional registration on the ground of cancellation on June 30, 197 under the Daegu District Court North Daegu District Court’s (Receipt Number omitted).

3. With respect to the above building on September 19, 1979, the defendant obtained from Nonparty 1 a provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership from the above registry (the receipt number omitted) on September 18, 1979 and completed the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership under the above registry (the receipt number omitted) under the above registry office (the receipt number omitted) on June 9, 1982.

4. The plaintiff loaned 41,605,00 won including the above loan, from January 11, 1980, including the fact that his provisional registration was cancelled, and only after being aware of the cancellation of the above provisional registration, the plaintiff won the loan claim lawsuit against the non-party 1 by filing a lawsuit claiming the restoration registration of the above provisional registration, and the above judgment of claiming the restoration registration became final and conclusive on November 22, 1983.

5. On December 9, 1983, the Plaintiff filed an application for restoration registration with Nonparty 1 without a consent of the Defendant or a certified copy of the judgment that could oppose the above final judgment, and completed the procedure for restoration registration. In accordance with the above final judgment rendered against Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff filed for restoration registration with the said registry office (the receipt number omitted) which was cancelled due to the above final judgment.

6. In other words, the Plaintiff won the suit for the principal registration based on the above provisional registration against Nonparty 1. The judgment became final and conclusive on September 10, 1985 and became final and conclusive on October 5, 1985, and the principal registration was made on April 222, 1984 under the above registry (receiving number omitted).

7. The defendant, as a party member (case number omitted), filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on December 9, 1983 against the plaintiff for the cancellation of the provisional registration for the right to claim ownership transfer as of December 9, 1983, and lost the judgment, which became final and conclusive as it is. In addition, each entry in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 against the above, is not contrary to the trust, and there is no counter-proof, and the fact that the defendant occupies the part of the original entry in the building currently recorded in

First of all, the defendant's registration of cancellation of the provisional registration on December 9, 1983 is null and void by the plaintiff's above violation of Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act. Thus, since the principal registration on this basis is also null and void, the plaintiff's application for cancellation of the provisional registration on this ground cannot be complied with the plaintiff's building name of this case. Thus, the above application for cancellation registration cannot be unlawful. However, if the above provisional registration is cancelled by means of forgery of document, etc. without the intention of the person having the right to the provisional registration, but the above provisional registration is null and void by means of forgery of document, etc. without the intention of the person having the right to the provisional registration, the third party having the right to the provisional registration has the obligation to consent necessary for the procedure for restoration registration, regardless of whether the damage occurred due to good faith, bad faith, or its restoration registration. Thus, as long as the above application for cancellation registration was received and registered in the register, it is reasonable to interpret that the above restoration registration of the plaintiff's above is valid as a registration consistent

Then, the defendant argued that the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage was completed in the name of the non-party Industrial Bank of Korea, Korea, or Japan, prior to the above provisional registration of the plaintiff with respect to the building stated in the attached list, since the defendant repaid the above non-party bank and the company the amount of KRW 40,000,000 as security debt and the plaintiff made unjust enrichment equivalent to the above security debt amount in accordance with the cancellation of all the above mortgage establishment registration, the plaintiff should return the above unjust enrichment and the damages for delay to the defendant before or at the same time. Thus, even if the plaintiff's unjust enrichment was recognized, the above claim for return of unjust enrichment does not have any relation with the above building even if the plaintiff's unjust enrichment was recognized, so the above argument cannot be a ground for refusing the plaintiff's request for surrender without any need to further examine.

Therefore, the defendant is not able to prove that there is a legitimate right to possess the original part of the building recorded in the attached list. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to order the plaintiff to specify the above portion of the building.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the amount of 1,080,000 won per month for damages from October 5, 1985 to the time when the above part of possession was ordered. Thus, according to the result of on-site verification by the party members and the result of appraisal by the non-party 3, the monthly rent for the above part of possession was recognized as 593,000, and there is no counter-proof. Thus, the part of the plaintiff's claim for damages is justified within the above scope of recognition.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to order the plaintiff to use the part of possession in the order and pay 593,00 won per month from October 5, 1985 to the completion date of the above order. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are five minutes per Disposition by the party members. The plaintiff's and the remainder are borne by the defendant, and provisional execution is not permitted. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Cho Il-dong (Presiding Judge)

A judge is unable to sign and seal by transfer.