Effects of overlapping registrations

The registration of ownership preservation, which is made with the same lot number as that of the forest land already registered on the register, is overlapping on the register, notwithstanding the circumstances leading to the registration, so the registration of ownership preservation is made in violation of the provisions of Article 15 and Article 55 (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act.

Articles 15 and 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 74Da527 delivered on August 30, 1974

Bucheon-si

Korea

Seoul and Criminal District Court Incheon (69A493) in the first instance trial.

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant Republic of Korea will implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership preservation registration as set forth in No. 18495, Jul. 27, 1965 with respect to the real estate listed in No. 1,2.3 of the attached Table 1, 1969 against the plaintiff, as Seoul Residents and Criminal District Court Incheon support No. 917, Jan. 25, 1969, which was due to sale on December 28, 1968, and the real estate listed in No. 4 of the attached Table 18495.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration

The facts that the registration of ownership transfer was made under the above title No. 1, No. 2, and No. 2, and the above title No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4, and No. 1, No. 6, and No. 7, No. 8, and No. 1, No. 6, and No. 8, no. 9, no. 2, and no. 9, no. 9, no. 2, and no. 9, no. 3, and no. 9, no. 1, no. 6, no. 9, no. 2, and no. 9, no. 9, no. 16, no. 3, and no. 9, no. 1, no. 2, and no. 9, no. 2, no. 3, and no. 2, no. 96, no.

Since the Defendant alleged that real estate listed in subparagraphs 1 through 3 of the attached Table 1 was farmland actually purchased at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and that the registration of ownership transfer of the Defendant’s name with respect to the above real estate was valid registration consistent with the substantive relations. Thus, considering the evidence and evidence evidence set forth above and the testimony of Nonparty 2 at the court below, as a whole, the Grade 1 through 4 of the first instance court witness No. 32-1 forest land in Man-dong, Incheon and the 32-1 forest land 6th 8th 4th Da-dong, Incheon were reclaimed as dry field and used as farmland by Nonparty 3 and 4 since the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act in 1950, part of the changed interest was reclaimed as farmland. The Defendant’s land category was changed to each dry field as described in paragraph 3 of the attached Table 2, and the remainder of the land category changed to that of the above dry field was transferred to Nonparty 1 and the remaining part of the forest land was transferred to Nonparty 2. The Defendant’s allegation that the above portion was divided as the above 1 farmland.

Judgment on the part of the claim for cancellation of registration of preservation

The plaintiff's assertion was already registered in the register (registration of indication) as 63.2.14, 63.2.2.14, 62-1, 32-1, 00 in Man-dong, Man-dong, Incheon. The registration of preservation of ownership was completed on July 27, 65.7, 65.2, 7-2, the above number of the above number of the above number of the land already registered on the register as 5-6, 8-1, 5-6, 5-1, 5-6, 5-2, 65-2, 7-1, 7-2, 65. The registration of preservation of ownership was null and void as it overlaps with that of the above number of the land already registered on the register as 6-4, 8-4, 65-2, 65-2, 65-2, 65.

Therefore, the fact that registration of ownership preservation has been made as to the forest land stated in the attached Table 1 list No. 4 under the defendant's name is without dispute between the parties and the above 2. The defendant's remaining 6th 7th 6th 1th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 7th 6th 7th 6th 7th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 7th 66th 26th 276th 296th 27th 276th 296th 27th 276th 2016th 36th 26th 27th 326th 3.

Therefore, the registration of preservation of ownership in the defendant's name with respect to the forest land as stated in the attached Table 1 list No. 4 is not only the date of invalidation registration made in violation of the provisions of Articles 15 and 55 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, but also the above 32-1 forest land No. 6-1 forest No. 8 forest No. 8 forest No. 5 forest No. 6 forest No. 7 forest No. 1 forest No. 7 forest No. 7 forest No. 1 forest No. 2 of the above annexed Table No. 1, and the above registration of preservation of ownership in the defendant's name with respect to the forest No. 4 is also owned by the plaintiff, who is the owner of the above forest land, and the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure of cancellation

3. If the defendant is obligated to perform the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership and the cancellation of the above registration for the registration for the cancellation of ownership of the real estate listed in Nos. 1, 2, and 3 of the attached Table 1 for the plaintiff as to the real estate listed in No. 4 of the attached Table 1 for the plaintiff, the plaintiff's claim for the principal lawsuit shall be accepted with reasonable grounds. The judgment of the court below which forms the same judgment and the defendant's appeal against this is without merit

Judges Lee Ho-ho (Presiding Judge)