Whether ownership is owned even though ownership is cancelled as a final and conclusive judgment but the final and conclusive judgment is cancelled by the final and conclusive judgment, if it has gone through the recovery registration procedure.

The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff was cancelled by execution of a final and conclusive judgment, but as long as the registration of cancellation was confirmed to have been without cause by a new judgment revoking the above final and conclusive judgment, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff holds ownership as it is, even though it did not go through the procedure of restoration registration.

Articles 186 and 187 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da343 delivered on September 25, 1979 (No. 186(17)36 of the Civil Code, No. 621 of the Court Gazette, No. 6257 Decided September 25, 197)

Kim Jong-man

Sheet metal et al.

Seoul Central District Court (78Gahap181) in the first instance trial

The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

As to the Plaintiff, as to the 5th 63th 63th dong-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government, Defendant Kim Dong-dong (1) the registration of preservation of ownership as Seoul District Court No. 27617 on November 2, 1972; and (2) Defendant Cho Jong-tae, as the receipt of the same support on December 2, 199, followed each procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration as the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration as it is under Article 30873 of the same Act.

Litigation Costs are assessed against the defendants (the part of the claim for ownership confirmation that was sought in the original trial was withdrawn from the trial).

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff at all of the first and second trials.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the registration of ownership transfer was cancelled on the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the registration of ownership transfer was cancelled on the non-party 7, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, and the non-party 2, the non-party 7, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were cancelled on the non-party 7, the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 7, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 7, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 1 and the non-party 3, the ownership registration.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which concluded that the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted on the grounds that it is well-grounded, is just, and the appeal by the defendants is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants who have lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Advice (Presiding Judge)