(a) Whether the person who acquired the real estate ownership by completing the registration of ownership transfer before the completion of the acquisition by prescription is claimed; and

B. Whether a change in a real right takes effect retroactively to the time a provisional registration is made by the principal registration based on a provisional registration (negative)

C. Whether the ownership transfer registration, consistent with the substantive legal relationship, has been valid even though a final judgment was made against the deceased (affirmative)

(d) Where the principal registration on the basis of provisional registration has been made after a decision on a provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of real estate, the right to claim ownership transfer registration of which has been made in the name of a third party, was rendered, and then the right to claim ownership transfer registration is preserved, whether it can be set up against

E. Whether a provisional injunction based on provisional registration is a matter to be registered under Article 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act (negative), and whether the right to the provisional injunction may oppose a legitimate subsequent purchaser of real estate by the entry of the provisional injunction decision (negative)

(a) A third party who acquired the ownership of real estate by completing the registration of ownership transfer prior to the completion of acquisition by prescription may not claim the acquisition by prescription unless the registration in the name of the third party is null and void.

B. In light of the nature of the provisional registration, if the principal registration has been made only after the priority preservation of the principal registration is effective, the priority order of the principal registration is retroactive to the time of the provisional registration, and the effect of any change in real right by the principal registration is not retroactive to the time of the provisional registration.

C. Even if the registration of ownership transfer against the deceased is made based on a final judgment, it shall be valid if it conforms to the substantive legal relationship.

(d) Where a decision has been made to prohibit a provisional disposition against the disposal of any real estate for which a provisional registration under the name of a third party has been made to the effect that the right to claim ownership transfer registration is a preserved right, if the principal registration on the basis of the provisional registration has been made, the provisional registration or the principal registration on the basis thereof is null and void, or the previous owner can recover ownership, or any other special reason exists, such decision may not be asserted.

E. The principal registration based on a provisional registration cannot be deemed to be the acquisition of the right to priority preservation (an increase or addition of the right) on the basis of the provisional registration, and the disposal of the right itself on the basis of the provisional registration (a reduction or extinguishment of the right). Thus, a provisional disposition prohibiting a principal registration based on a provisional registration does not constitute the matters to be registered under Article 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and even if such a provisional registration is recorded erroneously, the matters to be stated cannot take any effect, so the provisional disposition authority cannot oppose the legitimate subsequent purchaser of the real estate by the entry of the invalid provisional disposition decision

A. Article 245(b) of the Civil Act. Article 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act is Article 186 of the Civil Act. Article 714(d) of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 719 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2561 Decided January 31, 1989 (Gong1989,344) (Gong1991,736) 90Da841,8428 Decided January 15, 1991 (Gong1991,736) (Gong1991,139) 80Da3117 decided May 26, 1981 (Gong1981, 1394), Supreme Court Decision 81Da1298,1299 Decided June 222, 1982 (Gong1982,688) 6Da103329 decided Dec. 6, 196 (Gong1984, Apr. 16, 197) 196Da129847 decided Apr. 16, 197)

Plaintiff 1 and three others, Plaintiffs 1 and 2 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

1,000,000

Busan District Court Decision 91Na6310 delivered on May 1, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below recognized the fact that the non-party 1 (the deceased on August 1, 1985) entered into a lawsuit against the non-party 2, who was the deceased's heir, with the intention of ownership transfer for twenty years from January 21, 1963 to occupy the land of this case (the address omitted) owned by the non-party 2 (the non-party 1, 509 square meters) and completed the prescription on January 21, 1983. The court below held that the non-party 2, who was the owner at the time of the completion of the prescription, had the obligation to register the ownership transfer of this case to the non-party 1, the non-party 1, who was the deceased's heir, with the intention of ownership transfer for the above non-party 2, who was the non-party 9's provisional registration after the expiration of the prescription period, and that the non-party 2, who had the above obligation to register the ownership transfer of the above land, was not registered on the non-party 1, 97.

2. The Supreme Court Decision 90Da6651 delivered on November 27, 1990; 90Da6651 delivered on January 31, 1989; 2.00Da2561 delivered on January 31, 198; 2.00Da3117 delivered on May 26, 1981; 80Da31299 delivered on June 22, 1982; 2.0Da2561 delivered on January 31, 198; 3.00Da31299 delivered on June 26, 208; 3.0Da31299 delivered on June 22, 1982; 2.0Da31299 delivered on June 26, 2007; 3.00Da312999 delivered on this case’s land, the Plaintiffs’ ownership transfer registration, which was not a provisional registration, cannot be viewed as having been established on the grounds of expiration of prescription.

According to the records, as pointed out, the theory that the principal registration of the transfer of ownership as of November 14, 1989 on the land of this case was made by taking the non-party 2 who had already died at the time of the principal registration of the transfer of ownership as the representative liquidator of the defendant New Daily, and the registration procedure is unlawful.

However, even if the registration of ownership transfer is made based on a final judgment against the deceased, it is valid if it conforms to the substantive legal relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 69Da1249 delivered on October 14, 1969). Examining the relevant evidence, the judgment of the court below that held that the above registration of ownership transfer made by Defendant 2 is consistent with the substantive legal relationship as it is based on the completion of a promise for payment in kind for the repayment of loans made between the defendant and the defendant Newsan, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as theory of lawsuit, mistake of facts or lack of reasons. Thus, there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles such as theory of lawsuit, and therefore, the judgment below that the above registration of ownership transfer against the plaintiffs became impossible due to the transfer of the land ownership to Defendant 2 who is a third party after the expiration of the prescription period of the plaintiffs.

On the other hand, the non-party 2, who signed the above promise of accord and satisfaction on behalf of the defendant Ilsan, has no legitimate authority to represent the defendant Ilsan at the time, and therefore, the above promise of accord and satisfaction is null and void. Upon examining the statement No. 8 (Register of the register of the company) of this case, the defendant Il Ilsan was dissolved by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders on January 23, 1979 and the registration of dissolution was completed on February 6, 1979 and the non-party 2 was registered as the representative liquidator on November 1, 1978, and on the evidence No. 2 of this case, the above deed of the promise of accord and satisfaction, which was signed on November 1, 1978, was still signed by the representative liquidator at the time, and the non-party 2, a representative liquidator at the time of the above signing of the contract of accord and satisfaction, and it can not be seen that the above document of this case was null and void.

3. Where a provisional disposition is rendered against a real estate, the provisional registration of which has been made in the name of a third party, to prohibit the disposal of which the right to claim ownership transfer registration is a right to be preserved, if the principal registration on the basis of the provisional registration has been made, the provisional registration or the principal registration on the basis thereof is null and void, or if the previous owner can recover ownership, etc., the provisional disposition cannot be asserted (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da2632 delivered on January 27, 1981). On the other hand, making the provisional registration on the basis of provisional registration cannot be deemed to be the disposal of the owner of the right on the provisional registration on the basis of the provisional registration (i.e., the acquisition of the right priority on the basis of the provisional registration (i. the acquisition of the right or the reduction or extinguishment of the right) and thus, the provisional disposition prohibiting the principal registration on the basis of the provisional registration does not constitute any matter to be registered under Article 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and even if such provisional disposition is recorded erroneously, it cannot take effect (see this decision of provisional disposition against the subsequent purchaser).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the provisional registration of Defendant 2 was made on June 28, 1979 on the land of this case on the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration and the provisional registration of the provisional registration on May 29, 1989, and on June 14, 1989, the provisional registration on the right under the above provisional registration was made on November 14, 1989, and then the principal registration of ownership transfer registration was made in the name of Defendant 2 on the ground of the provisional registration on the land of this case. Despite the above provisional registration registration, the plaintiffs cannot prevent them from acquiring ownership by completing the principal registration of ownership transfer registration on the ground of the provisional registration on the land of this case. The judgment of the court below is just in this case where there is no special reason such as the provisional registration under the name of Defendant 2 or the principal registration on the ground that the cause of the provisional registration is null and void.

Ultimately, all appeals are dismissed, and all costs of 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 Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)