[1] The requirements for the claim for ownership transfer registration for the restoration of the true title of registration

[2] Where registration of ownership preservation has been made twice in the name of a third party on land for which registration of ownership transfer was made under Gap's name, and the registration of ownership transfer has been made in sequence, the case holding that Eul, who is the last registered titleholder of the above transfer registration based on the registration of ownership preservation, cannot claim the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true name

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Code / [2] Article 186 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da47142 delivered on March 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1060), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da36484 Delivered on August 21, 2001 (Gong2001Ha, 2036), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da41435 Delivered on January 10, 2003 (Gong2003Sang, 621), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64148 Delivered on May 13, 2003 (Gong203Sang, 1282)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Jeju District Court Decision 2006Na1060 Decided January 17, 2007

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

A request for ownership transfer registration for the restoration of the true name is sought for the restoration of the true name in lieu of seeking the cancellation of ownership registration against the current registered titleholder. Thus, if the true owner is not a real owner, a request for ownership transfer registration for the restoration of the true name may not be made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da47142, Mar. 11, 1997; 2002Da64148, May 13, 2003). However, with respect to the land in this case, the registration of ownership transfer was made twice in the name of Nonparty 2, while the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the predecessor in the name of the Defendants, and thereafter, the registration was made in sequence in the name of the Plaintiff through Nonparty 3 and 4, and it is obvious that the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Plaintiff through the registration in the name of Nonparty 2, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles against the Plaintiff’s assertion that the registration of ownership transfer was invalidated.

The plaintiff asserts that the purpose of the claim of this case is to resolve overlapping registration in the same manner as the last registered titleholder of double registration of this case. However, the plaintiff cannot seek the registration of transfer of ownership based on the recovery of authentic name solely on the above reasons, apart from seeking the registration of transfer of ownership in his own name by claiming the registration of transfer of ownership in successive subrogation of non-party 4, non-party 3 and non-party 2 or seeking the registration

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)