(a) Estimated records of the relevant registration before the transfer registration of ownership cancelled without any cause is restored;

(b) Cases where it cannot be viewed contrary to the res judicata effect of a protocol of recognition and recognition.

A. It is reasonable to view that registration of transfer of ownership does not affect the validity of a real right in a case where a registration of transfer of ownership is cancelled without any reason because it is a requirement for validity of a real right and is not a requirement for validity of a registration of transfer of ownership. Thus, if the registration is cancelled ex officio by the order of the competent district court, but the cancellation registration should be restored as it is completed without any reason, and if the cancellation registration becomes final and conclusive thereafter, the final title holder of the transfer of ownership should be presumed to be a legitimate right holder even before the completion of the restoration registration. Therefore, the burden of proving that the transfer registration is inconsistent

B. On the same real estate, the registration of ownership transfer was cancelled in sequence from the non-party state to the plaintiff through the non-party state, the plaintiff, and the defendant again through the non-party state, and the plaintiff again through the non-party state, the non-party state, the non-party (A), and the plaintiff before the registration of recovery was made. In the registration of ownership transfer, or in the subsequent registration of ownership transfer, if it is recognized that the registration of ownership transfer made before the defendant was made by the same recognition clause, the plaintiff's claim in this case on the ground that the registration made before the recovery of the defendant's registration and the registration made within the scope of shares overlap with the registration made within the scope of the same recognition clause cannot be deemed to conflict with the res judicata effect of the registration protocol.

A. Article 186 of the Civil Act Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 70Da742 delivered on July 28, 1970, 79Da1447 delivered on October 10, 1979

Attorney Seo-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of the Korea Vocational Technology University

Defendant 1 and 7 others

Defendant 1’s assistant intervenor 1 and nine others

Defendant 5’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Lee Young-hoon and Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Defendant 8’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Lee Young-hoon and Kim Tae-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na2895 delivered on September 4, 1981

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

1. Each of the grounds of appeal No. 1 by the Plaintiff’s attorney is examined together.

It is reasonable to view that the registration of real rights does not affect the validity of the real rights in the case that the registration of real rights is cancelled without any cause, because it is the requirement for the effective effect of the real rights.

According to the facts of the decision of the court below, after the registration of each share transfer was made in sequence from the non-party state to the non-party, the plaintiff, and the defendant 1 through the non-party, the registration official cancelled each share transfer registration ex officio by the order of the competent district court, but then the order of the competent district court ordering the above ex officio cancellation became final and conclusive. Thus, the above registration of cancellation ex officio should be restored as the registration was completed without any cause, and the above registration of cancellation should be restored, and the plaintiff holds the right as the registered titleholder even before the restoration registration is completed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 70Da724, Jul. 28, 1970; 79Da1447, Oct. 10, 197).

Therefore, the plaintiff is presumed to be a legitimate right holder of the above share transfer registration, so it is clear that the plaintiff's burden of proving that the above share transfer registration is inconsistent with the substantive relation. However, the court below held that the above share transfer registration made in the plaintiff's name prior to the burden of proof is a registration to be cancelled because there is no evidence to acknowledge the plaintiff's letter that the above share transfer registration, which was made in the plaintiff's name, accords with the substantive relation. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the legal principle of the burden of proof as to the presumption of the above share transfer registration and its substantive relation.

However, according to the records, since the registration of transfer of shares made in the name of the non-party among the above transfer of shares was not consistent with the judgment, which is the grounds for registration (as a judgment, only 1/4 of the above non-party's shares out of the real estate in this case) and the part exceeding the share indicated in the judgment is not likely to be deemed to have broken down with the presumption of registration. However, even if it is based on each of the evidence No. 4-2 and evidence No. 31-2 and No. 31-3 (this is a clerical error, although the court below indicated No. 31-3 of this case as evidence No. 32-3) admitted by the court below, the actual share of the non-party in the above non-party's name as to the real estate in this case was recognized as 9078/130788, it cannot be deemed that the share in the above non-party's name was ultimately consistent with the substantive relation. If the court below ruled that the part of the transfer registration of shares in this non-party also does not coincide with the substance relation, it cannot be inconsistent with the evidence.

2. Each of the grounds of appeal No. 2 by the same attorney is examined together.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since the registration of transfer in Defendant 1, for whom the plaintiff seeks cancellation, was made by the appellant's abortion between the plaintiff and the above defendant, the plaintiff's claim for the registration of cancellation in this case against the defendant 1 and his successor, unless the above recognition and recognition protocol was revoked by quasi-adjudications, the plaintiff's claim for registration of cancellation in this case against the defendant 1

However, according to the facts established by the court below, with respect to the share of 9078/13078 among the real estate in this case, each of the share transfer registration was cancelled in order from the non-party state, the plaintiff, and the defendant 1 in order to the plaintiff in the future without any reason, and then, prior to the recovery registration, each of the share transfer registration for the real estate in this case was made in sequence from the non-party state to the non-party, the non-party et al. and the plaintiff through the plaintiff. In relation to the above share transfer registration as the previous registration, it is recognized that the transfer registration was made by the plaintiff and the non-party et al., or that the transfer registration made in the defendant 1 by the plaintiff was made by the same certificate of recognition. In light of the above facts, it cannot be said that the subsequent registration overlaps within

Thus, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of this case is made on the ground that the above defendant's registration is a subsequent registration which overlaps within the scope of shares and that it does not deny the grounds for registration of the above defendant's name. Thus, there is no room to regard it as a violation of res judicata of the above recognition protocol. Thus, the above judgment of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of the grounds for the claim and the scope of res judicata of the above recognition protocol.

3. Ultimately, each of the above unlawful acts constitutes grounds for reversal under Article 12(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)