Where there is an excessive difference between the parcel number indicated as the seat and the actual seat as to the registration of preservation of building ownership, the validity of such registration, if it is too different from the indication;

In the registration of initial ownership of building A, there is an excessive difference between the parcel number indicated as the seat (red red 292) and the actual seat number (red red 266-192, 266-185 of 266). Therefore, the registration of initial ownership of building A shall not be null and void.

Articles 131 and 72 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Judgment 74Da1458 delivered on October 22, 1974 (the summary of the decision, Article 72(6) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 72(6) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, No. 502, 8013)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul Central District Court (75 Gohap4643, 76 Gohap2806) in the first instance trial

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's main claim against the defendant, etc. is all dismissed.

It is confirmed that the buildings listed in the attached list are owned by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (a counterclaim defendant) in the first and second instances of the principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

The part of the original judgment against the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) shall be revoked.

Defendant 2, Defendant 3 paid KRW 50,00 in each month to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant), Defendant 2, and Defendant 1 paid KRW 40,000 in each month from the following day of delivery to the above order of delivery: (a) KRW 50,00 in each month from among the buildings listed in the attached list; (b) KRW 12 square meters in each floor; and (c) KRW 12 square meters in each floor from among the buildings listed in the attached list; and (d) KRW 1,00 in each month from the following day of delivery to the above order of delivery.

Defendant 1’s claim against Defendant 1 is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants in the principal lawsuit and counterclaims of both the first and second instances.

The above paragraph (2) can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

The plaintiff (the counterclaim is referred to only as the plaintiff, the counterclaim)'s main lawsuit against the defendants and the defendant (the counterclaim is referred only to the plaintiff, the counterclaim is referred to as the defendant)'s counterclaim.

As of February 25, 1975, the Plaintiff’s legal representative claimed that the above building was owned by the Plaintiff as of February 25, 1975, such as the lot number, structure, and building size of the building in this case as indicated in the separate sheet, and this case’s building was owned by the Plaintiff as of February 25, 1975, and No. 7 and No. 292, the above obstruction No. 7 and no. 12, and no. 2, and no. 11, and no. 6, the title owner of the 26th, non-party 1’s building, and the Plaintiff’s legal representative claimed that the Plaintiff would be liable for the payment of damages from the 10th, 4th, and the above building was originally owned by Non-party 1, who purchased the above building on July 25, 1972, and newly constructed the 2nd floor and owned the above 12th, non-party 1’s 26th, 1975.

Although there is no theory between the parties, the fact that the registration of ownership preservation of the plaintiff and the defendant 1 has been completed, in order to be valid in the form of real estate, there is no need to say that the registration of ownership preservation of the plaintiff and the defendant 1 is closely consistent with the actual relation of rights. However, in the registration of the preservation of the plaintiff's name, it is necessary to be close between the actual relation of rights and the actual relation of rights at least to the extent sufficient to make public the actual relation of rights. Since it is extremely different from the actual location of the red lot number (No. 266-192, 266-185, 266-185, 292, 292, 292, 292, 292, 266-185, 292, 291, 292, 292, 292, 294, 294, 3002, 302, 3012).

However, the Plaintiff’s legal representative asserted that the sales contract between Nonparty 1 and Defendant 1, the original owner of the instant building, on July 25, 1972, was terminated as the same person was not paid the remainder by December 30, 1973, and thus, the registration of preservation of the said Defendant’s name was a registration of invalidation of cause not consistent with the substance. However, it is difficult to recognize it solely by Nonparty 5 (written confirmation) and the testimony of Nonparty 2 of the lower court, and there is no other evidence to support it.

Therefore, since the building listed in the attached list of this case is owned by Defendant 1, the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit based on the premise that the plaintiff is his own ownership is groundless without any need to determine the remainder of the lawsuit, and the defendant's claim for the counterclaim seeking the confirmation of the ownership of Defendant 1 is reasonable.

Therefore, the plaintiff's principal claim against the defendants is without merit, and it is dismissed, and the defendant 1's counterclaim claim is reasonable, and thus, the judgment of the court below which has different result is unfair, and it is so modified as above and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges fixed number of persons (Presiding Judge)