Whether a certificate of taxation by local tax item constitutes a document under the latter part of Article 131 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act (negative)

No certificate of taxation by local tax item shall be a document in the latter part of Article 131 (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act.

Article 131 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na37796 delivered on August 27, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged facts as stated in its reasoning based on evidence, and found that the owner of the building constructed a new building with his own funds and effort and obtained a building permit under the name of the owner of the building site, barring special circumstances such as cancellation of title trust, if the building is completed under Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, it shall undergo a completion inspection under the name of the owner of the building permit and register it in his name on the building management ledger and have no choice but to make a preservation registration under the name of the owner on the building management ledger. In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that the plaintiff, who is the title holder of the building permit, has an intention to make a preservation registration of the building of this case under the name of the owner of the building, as the owner of the building, and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the owner of the building in title trust. Thus, in order to preserve the claim against the above co-defendant 1, who is the trustee of the building permit of this case, the plaintiff's claim for preservation registration of this case was made in detail No. 1.

However, the certificate of taxation by local tax item does not constitute a document under the latter part of Article 131 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and the judgment of the court below that the certificate constitutes a document under the above provision is erroneous.

However, as the court below duly admitted, the plaintiff had the intent to make a preservation registration of the building of this case under the name of co-defendant 1 of the court below, who is the title holder of the building permit, and unless there is any assertion or proof by the plaintiff as to the cancellation of title trust to co-defendant 1 of the above court below prior to the completion of the preservation registration, the registration of preservation of ownership of the building of this case, which has been made in the name of co-defendant 1 of the above court below, shall be a lawful and effective registration consistent with the substantive relations, and the above errors by the court below shall not affect the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, there is no error of misapprehending the legal principles as to title trust which affected the conclusion of the judgment, misapprehending the legal principles

All of the grounds of appeal cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)