Where registration of preservation of ownership has been made differently from the registered titleholder with respect to the same real estate, but where a prior registration is not invalidated due to the invalidation of the cause, whether the subsequent registration and the registration of transfer is valid in sequence based thereon (negative)

Where a registration of preservation has been made in duplicate where the registered titleholder is different with respect to the same real estate, the registration of preservation should be invalidated even if the registration made later is made by the buyer of the real estate, unless the registration made later is null and void. However, the registration of preservation made later is null and void because there is no assertion or proof that the registration of preservation made earlier with respect to the real estate in this case is null and void. Accordingly, the registration of transfer made later from Eul cannot be exempt from being null and void. Furthermore, the registration of establishment of a mortgage established on the premise that Byung has lawfully acquired the ownership through a valid registration of transfer of ownership, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the auction procedure conducted on the basis of the premise that Byung has legally acquired the ownership through a valid registration of transfer of ownership, is also null and void. Accordingly, the ownership of the land in this case cannot be acquired.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 15 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2961, 87Da453 Decided November 23, 1990 (Gong1991, 178) (Gong1991, 178), Supreme Court Decision 89Meu34688 Decided December 11, 1990 (Gong191, 452)

[Defendant-Appellee] Attorney Yu Young-hee et al.

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na21137 delivered on August 23, 1989

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

The grounds of appeal by the defendant litigant are examined.

According to the court below's decision that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 12, 1932 with respect to the non-party 1's 48-1 forest land 46-9 forest land no longer owned in the name of the non-party 1's 9-6 forest land on the 1's 48-1 forest land on the 1's 5-1's 9-6 forest land on the 1's 1's 1's 9-1's 9-6 forest land on the 1's 1's 1's 97-1's 9-6 forest land on the 1's 1's 1's 9-6-1's 1's 1's 1's 97-1's 1's 1's 9-6-1's 1's 97-1's 1's 97-1's 1's 97-1's 1's 97-1's 1'

However, if a registration of preservation has been made in duplicate with respect to the same real estate registered titleholder, unless the registration of preservation completed first is null and void, the registration made later shall be null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2961, 87Da453, Nov. 23, 1990). Thus, in this case where there is no assertion that the registration made earlier on the real estate in this case is null and void as the cause of the registration of preservation of ownership in this case’s title, the registration of preservation in this case’s name shall be deemed null and void. Accordingly, the registration of preservation in this case’s name shall be deemed null and void on the basis of this case’s transfer on the premise that the registration of preservation of ownership was duly acquired on the premise that the above Kim Hm is valid, and on the basis of this, the registration of the registration of establishment in this case’s name, which was initiated in the auction procedure, shall be deemed null and void, and thus the Plaintiff may not acquire the ownership in this case’s land.

Thus, the plaintiff cannot seek cancellation of the transfer of ownership under the name of the defendant, which is obvious that the plaintiff has made a successive payment based on the registration of preservation of the above-mentioned type of ownership, regardless of the fact that the plaintiff can file a claim against the country for the transfer of ownership by subrogation of the above-mentioned type of the land distributed from the country and the next pre-party purchaser.

Ultimately, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on double registration, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the grounds for appeal assigning this error are with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice) Lee Chang-soo Kim Jong-won