Whether the interest in the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the original registration is maintained in the event that the registration was temporarily cancelled while the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the registration is pending (affirmative)

If the registration was temporarily cancelled while the lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for cancellation of any registration was pending, the original cancellation of the registration will maintain the benefit of the lawsuit.

Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act (Institution of Lawsuit)

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on August 2, 201

Supreme Court Decision 90Da8657 Delivered on March 27, 1991

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na15654 delivered on September 4, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

(1) If the registration was temporarily cancelled while the lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for cancellation of any registration was pending and the subsequent registration was completed, the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the registration will be deemed as maintaining the benefit of the lawsuit as it is.

In the same purport, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim seeking cancellation of the registration of seizure of this case, which was registered for cancellation of cancellation, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit.

Other arguments, which are not asserted by the court below, are unlawful as they are considered as the grounds of appeal. All arguments are without merit.

(2) Examining the record and comparison, the court below is justified in finding that the plaintiff purchased the above real estate from the deceased non-party who was the previous owner before the completion of the registration of seizure in the name of the defendants and completed the provisional registration in the name of the plaintiff for the purpose of preserving the right to claim ownership transfer, but after the registration of seizure was completed, the above provisional registration was completed with the payment of the sale balance and the above provisional registration. In so doing, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, etc.

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)