The effect of registration of preservation of ownership, in which the lot number indication on the registry is different from the actual and minor;

In a case where the registration of preservation of ownership was made by mistake with the number of 240 points in 242 at the same time, the registration of preservation of ownership was minor in the lot number display, but it can be inferred as a substitute for the registration made by the applicant for registration of preservation of the above building with the intention of the above building, which can be corrected by the registration of preservation of the above building, and the registration of preservation of ownership for the above building is a registration of preservation to the extent that the identity of the above building can be easily corrected by the registration of correction, and therefore, the registration of preservation of ownership for the above building is valid, regardless of whether the registration of correction was later made.

Article 177 of the former Civil Act; Article 63 of the former Registration of Real Estate Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] 74Da2188 decided Apr. 22, 1975 (Law No. 186(3)(100), 320 pages, 10929, 23 ① 236, 5135)

Plaintiff

Defendant

This case is dismissed.

Expenses for public prosecution shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant (appellant)'s attorney shall revoke the original judgment. The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. The plaintiff's lawsuit costs shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second trials, and the plaintiff's judgment in the same part of paragraph (1) of this Article shall be sought.

The actual statement of both parties is identical to the facts stated in the original judgment, thereby admitting it as it is.

As evidence, the plaintiff submitted evidence Nos. 1 through 7 of the court below's testimony of non-party 1 (2), non-party 2 and 3 of the non-party 4 of the court below's testimony, and the result of the appraisal by non-party 4 of the court below's testimony, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the case, and the defendant's attorney submitted evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 2 of the case Nos. 1, 2, 5-1, 2, 5-1, 6-2 of the above evidence Nos. 1, 3-2 of the case, 3-2, 4-2 of the above evidence Nos. 4 of the court below's testimony, 3-1, 4-1, 7 of the case is stated as a site.

In light of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2-2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2-2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 which is admitted as the authenticity by the testimony of non-party Nos. 1 of the original trial witness Eul, Eul evidence No. 1 of the original trial, Eul evidence No. 2 of the original trial witness No. 240 and the whole purport of the parties' arguments, the main building of this case No. 15-4 of the original 15-2 of the 195-2 of the 2000-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-U.S.-U.-S.-S.-O. 300,000,000 after being purchased from the non-party No. 2,

On the other hand, the issue between the original and the defendant's double registration of initial ownership in this building is to be determined pursuant to the principle of real estate registration form (if the actual requirements are met), and the registration of preservation on the original building exhibited by the plaintiff is null and void because its lot number is not in conformity with the actual conditions, and subsequent registration of preservation cannot be set up against the defendant because it is no retroactive effect, it is necessary to specify the object and accurately state it in the principle of registration of the site for real estate, and if it is impossible to recognize the identity between the original and the actual object in the registry, the registration shall be null and void in principle, even if there is any error in the content of the registration of preservation, and it is valid if it is recognized as a replacement of the original registration of the original building on October 15, 4287, and it is recognized as a replacement of the original registration to the extent that the plaintiff's new registration of preservation on the original building was not consistent with the fact that the original registration is valid after the fact that the original registration of preservation on the original building was not established at two preceding weeks.

Since the Defendant has been in possession or use prior to the Plaintiff’s registration of the preservation of the letter, the Defendant’s possession of the building at issue after the date of the Plaintiff’s display registration is an illegal possession, and there is a duty to order the Plaintiff to occupy the building and to pay damages to the deceased party from the date of the date of the display registration, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.

If so, according to the result of the appraiser non-party 4's appraisal about the assessment of damages of the Co., Ltd. at the Aconsified court, it is recognized that the monthly rent of this building is reasonable for 6,000.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim for this case is reasonable within the scope of the amount of the temporary damage for the name of the house and the recognition of friendship, it is reasonable to accept the claim for contribution and the claim for contribution is reasonable, and since the original judgment in the Dong branch is reasonable, and the defendant's case is without merit, it is decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Yang Gyeong-Gyeongng (Presiding Judge)