The method of asserting the invalidity of the cause of the ownership transfer registration made by the protocol prior to filing a lawsuit.

No transfer registration of ownership, which has been made in a protocol prior to filing a lawsuit, may assert the invalidation of the cause except for the request for cancellation by the quasi-examination procedure.

Articles 431 and 206 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 62Da490 delivered on October 18, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 8169,8170 delivered on August 18, 196, Supreme Court Decision 62Da491 delivered on October 25, 1962 (Supreme Court Decision 81Da8170 delivered on September 18, 196, Supreme Court Decision 10Da1030 delivered on October 25, 1962)

Plaintiff 1 and six others

Defendant

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (72Gahap96)

The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

On December 22, 1970, the defendant filed with the plaintiffs for the cancellation registration of superficies creation on the ground of the contract on December 21, 1970 as to the real estate stated in the attached list, and implemented the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration on the ground of sale on March 6, 1971 as the receipt of the same court on February 29, 1972, and the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration on the ground of sale on March 6, 1971 as the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration on the same real estate, as the receipt of the court on March 8, 1971 as the procedure for the cancellation registration of provisional registration on March 6, 1971 as the procedure for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer due

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

The fact that a registration, such as the purport of the claim, has been made in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list, is not in dispute between the parties, and there is no conflict between the parties, and according to the contents of No. 1 and No. 2 of No. 1-2, each of the above real estate is originally owned by the plaintiffs, and there is no counter-proof. The plaintiffs do not have sold the above real estate to the defendant or concluded a contract to establish superficies, and there is no counter-proof. The plaintiffs asserted that all of the above registrations are registration of invalidation lacking the cause, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no dispute over the establishment, according to the contents of No. 2 of No. 2 of the above registration, the part of the principal registration of ownership transfer registration among the above registrations was completed between the plaintiff and the

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims for cancellation of the above registration in the name of the defendant are without merit on the premise that the above registration in the name of the defendant is invalid, and therefore the part of the plaintiffs' claims for cancellation of the principal registration in this case cannot be asserted as invalid except for the remedy by quasi-deliberation procedure. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance that is just and the appeal by the plaintiffs is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Choi Yong-so (Presiding Judge)