Whether the registration of ownership transfer based on an invalid registration for preservation of ownership is converted to a legitimate registration due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription.

If there is a third party who has an interest in the registration until the expiration of the prescriptive acquisition period, the registration of ownership transfer based on the registration of ownership preservation that should be cancelled as double registration shall not be converted to a legitimate registration due to the completion of the prescriptive acquisition.

Articles 186 and 245 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

Man Jina

Geumsung Co., Ltd.

Seoul Central District Court (87Gahap2873) in the first instance trial

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration as of January 26, 1983, No. 8554, which was received by the Seoul Central District Court for Seoul, Gangnam-gu 125-2 435 square meters to the plaintiff.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The judgment of the court below is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

As to the above land stated in the purport of this paragraph, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the above 1983. 26. The above land was registered under the name of the defendant 1, 2, 1, 3-1, 2-2, 3 (No. 1, 2-2) of the above land under the name of the defendant 1, 4-1, 5-2, 4-2, and 9-2 of the court below's title registration number of the above 4-1, 5-2, and the above land was registered under the name of the non-party 1, 5-2, 4-1, 5-2, 4-1, 5-2, 7-1, 4-1, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 4-1, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 3-1, 1937.

According to the above facts of recognition, registration of ownership in the name of Lee Jong-won, the above largest number of the names, and the registration of ownership in the name of the largest number of the names of the above non-party Lee Jong-won, which are completed with respect to the above land, are double registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the above Lee Jong-won, different from the registered titleholder with respect to the same land. The registration of ownership in the name of the above Lee Jong-won is a registration of invalidation which does not fit with the substantive rights. Thus, registration of ownership in the name of the defendant, the above ownership in the name of the above defendant shall be cancelled as a registration of invalidation by the former registration.

Even if the above ownership transfer registration is invalid, the defendant purchased the above land on March 29, 1966 and continued to occupy it in peace and open with the intention of ownership until now after the commencement of possession. Since the above stability has passed on March 28, 1986, the above ownership transfer registration in the defendant's name cannot be complied with the plaintiff's request for the cancellation registration procedure. As such, the above ownership transfer registration in the above name of the defendant cannot be seen as being consistent with the current substantive legal relations. Considering the above stability of the ownership transfer registration in the above 196.3rd of the above land, the above ownership transfer registration in the above 196.3rd of the above land was purchased on March 29, 196 by the non-party 1, the above 3rd of the above land, and the above 196.3rd of the above 3rd of the title transfer registration in the above 1975. The above 2nd of the expiration of the ownership transfer registration in the above 1983rd of the above land.

(3) The court below held that the defendant's transfer registration procedure based on the registration of preservation of the above Lee Jong-won's name should continue to exist as a valid registration, even if the defendant seeks against the plaintiff to implement the transfer registration procedure based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription, since the plaintiff cannot claim for the completion of the transfer registration on April 17, 1987, which is after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, and therefore, the defendant cannot claim for the completion of the transfer registration on April 17, 1987.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant is invalid and the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation registration of transfer of ownership as above to the plaintiff. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that concluded is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost.

Judges Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Judge)