(a) If an additional registration has been made prior to the provisional registration, the other party to request the cancellation of the provisional registration;

(b) Where a provisional registration is cancelled, whether the additional registration is cancelled ex officio;

C. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the legal point of view was not fulfilled and the duty of explanation was not fulfilled

(a) A supplementary registration based on the transfer of a provisional registration is to specify the succession relationship based on the existing provisional registration on the register, and as such, a claim for cancellation registration of a provisional registration is sufficient against the transferee as it does not create a new right by that registration, and the transferor is not eligible for the defendant in the claim for cancellation registration.

B. The supplementary registration prior to the provisional registration is subordinate to the provisional registration, which is an existing principal registration, and constitutes a whole of the principal registration, and thus, if the secured obligation is extinguished, only the cancellation of the provisional registration, which is the principal registration, shall be sought, and the supplementary registration shall be cancelled ex officio pursuant to the cancellation of the principal registration, even if it does not seek a separate cancellation

C. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the court below's rejection of a lawsuit based on this point must not reach the level of opportunity for the plaintiff to present this point, and it did not properly perform its duty of explanation due to the plaintiff's failure to perform its duty of explanation as well as due to the plaintiff's failure to perform its duty of explanation, in case where the court below, in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of provisional registration and provisional registration transfer, the issue of whether the secured debt of provisional registration occurred or not, was deliberated only on the issue of whether the secured debt of provisional registration occurred, and the court below revoked the judgment of the court of first instance without explanation or pleading as to the defendant's standing or cancellation method of provisional registration, etc.

(a) Registration of Real Estate Act Article 156-2; Article 6(1) of the Registration of Real Estate Act; Article 126(4) of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 67Da482 delivered on June 13, 1967 (No. 15B citizen58), 67Da2558 delivered on January 31, 1968 (No. 16Nu2585 delivered on March 8, 198) (Gong1988,662), Supreme Court Decision 87Da1836 delivered on November 22, 198 (Gong1989,18) (Gong1981 delivered on June 10, 1994)

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1, the deceased Nonparty 1’s taking-off of the lawsuit, Defendant 2 and three others

Gwangju High Court Decision 93Na4075 delivered on February 18, 1994

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on November 7, 1983 with regard to the forest of this case, the court below acknowledged, based on macro evidence, that provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer has been made in the name of the Selection Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Selection Co., Ltd.), and on April 25, 1985, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the plaintiff on April 25, 1985, and the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Selection Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Selection Co., Ltd.) under the name of the deceased Non-Party 2, etc. and Non-Party 1, Defendant 2, etc. of the deceased Co., Ltd., the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the above provisional registration and the provisional registration prior to the provisional registration on the ground that it became final that the secured claim of the above provisional registration will not occur, and thus, it is unlawful to revoke the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the provisional registration.

2. On the first ground for appeal

The additional registration based on the transfer of provisional registration is to specify the succession relation with the right based on the existing provisional registration on the register, and as such, a claim for cancellation of provisional registration shall be sufficient for the assignee, not on the new right by the registration, and the transferor shall not be the defendant in the claim for cancellation registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 67Da2558, Nov. 31, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 67Da482, Jun. 13, 1967); since the additional registration prior to the provisional registration is subordinate to the provisional registration, which is an existing principal registration, and is integrated with the principal registration, if the obligation subject to security is extinguished, it shall be required to cancel the provisional registration which is the principal registration, and even if the above additional registration does not separately seek for cancellation, it shall be cancelled ex officio by the cancellation of the principal registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Da1836, Nov. 22, 198; Supreme Court Decision 87Da258555, Mar. 8, 19888).

The judgment below to the same purport is correct, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the nature or effect of additional registration before provisional registration, and the precedents cited in the arguments are not appropriate in this case. There is no reason to discuss.

3. On the second ground for appeal

According to the records, only the first instance court and the lower court have deliberated only on the issues as to whether the secured debt of the provisional registration of this case occurred (the first instance court decided on the merits at the end of a long-standing deliberation on the issues above) and there was no statement or pleading as to the qualification for the defendant or the method of cancelling the additional registration of provisional registration. Nevertheless, the lower court can be found to have revoked the judgment of the first instance court and rendered a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's lawsuit, as seen earlier.

However, in light of the litigation performance or the trial process of this case, the court below should have the plaintiff present his argument about this issue in order to take the issue such as defendant qualification, etc. as the basis of the trial, and if necessary, the court below should have given the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the purport of the claim, etc., and dismissed the lawsuit based on this issue without doing so. This is not only the plaintiff's legal point of view, which is not anticipated at all, but also the plaintiff's sacrify and did not perform its duty of explanation due to the plaintiff's failure to perform its duty of explanation. This error has affected the conclusion of the judgment. The argument pointing this out has merit.

4. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)