[1] The meaning of "third party who has an interest in the registration" under Article 32 (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and whether the registration to be corrected is a third party who has an interest in the registration in the registration where the registration is not compatible with the registration (negative)

[2] Where a registrar finds any error, such as omission of effective matters, error, etc., in the course of computer transfer with regard to the registration record, whether registration of correction shall be made ex officio (affirmative in principle), and whether a person entitled to registration or a person obliged to file for registration may solely apply for registration of correction to the effect that the person obliged to file for registration or the person obliged to file for registration asks

[3] The case holding that in a case where the registration officer filed an application for ex officio correction registration in the purport that the co-owner's co-ownership share of Gap, Eul, Byung should be deemed as 1/700 shares in total, while the registration officer filed an application for ex officio correction registration in the purport that the co-ownership share of Eul, Eul, and Byung should be deemed as 1/700 shares, but the registration officer rejected the application, in the case where the registration officer made a decision to dismiss the application, it cannot be concluded that it constitutes a case where a mistake was made due to an error by an agency such as the ground for ex officio correction registration under Article 32 (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, which is the ground for ex officio correction registration under Article 32 (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, without separately indicating co-ownership share in the column of the closed register

[1] Article 32(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that where a registrar finds that the error or omission of a registration is due to the mistake of the registry officer, he/she shall correct the registration ex officio, but where there is a third party having an interest in the registration, he/she must obtain consent from a third party. Here, “third party having an interest in the registration” refers to a right holder on the registration that is likely to incur loss by permitting a corrective registration to correct the error or omission in the existing registration, and the content of the registration to be corrected is merely subject to correction, and it does not require separate consent by deeming the title holder as a third party having an interest in the registration to be the other party to the request for consent.

[2] Where part of an existing registration has been erroneously or omitted from the time of registration, and the registration does not coincide with the substantive relationship, the relevant part of the existing registration is corrected or supplemented to correct it. Thus, where there are errors such as omission of effective matters, error, etc. with regard to the registration record the computer is completed, the registration of correction shall be made ex officio pursuant to Article 32(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, unless there is a third party having an interest in the registration, and where a registrar finds any error such as omission of effective matters, error, etc. in the registration record the computer is completed, he/she shall make ex officio registration of correction in accordance with Article 32(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act. In such a case, a person entitled to registration or a person liable for registration may solely file an application for registration of correction with

[3] The case holding that in a case where the registration officer applied for the ex officio correction of the purport that the co-owner's co-ownership share should be considered as 1/700 shares of Eul and Byung and that the co-owner's co-ownership share should be considered as 1/700 shares, but the registration officer decided to dismiss the application, on the ground that the registration officer's co-ownership share should be considered as 701 shares, without separately indicating co-ownership share in the column of the closed register, and the name and address of co-owners are stated in the co-owner's name and co-owner's name and 701 shares, such as Gap, Eul, Byung, and Byung, when the co-ownership share of the co-owner's co-owner's co-ownership falls under the common area of the apartment building composed of 700 households, the registration officer stated it is merely the subject of correction, and it is not necessary to separately obtain consent from the third party who is the other party to the request for consent as the co-owner's share.

[1] Article 32 (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [2] Article 32 (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [3] Article 32 (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Articles 186 and 262 (2) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 201Ma1248 Decided September 14, 2011 / [2] Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1405 Decided February 6, 2009

Applicant

Seoul Western District Court Order 2016Ra1022 dated June 20, 2016

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Article 32(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that where a registrar finds that the error or omission of a registration is due to the mistake of a registry officer, he/she shall correct the registration ex officio, but where a third party has an interest in the registration, he/she must obtain consent from a third party. Here, “third party having an interest in the registration” refers to a right holder on the registration that is likely to incur loss by permitting a registration of correction to rectify the error or omission existing in the registration. In cases where a registration to be corrected is inconsistent with the registration and the registration to be corrected, the content of the registration is merely the subject of correction, and it does not require a separate consent by deeming the title holder as a third party having an interest in the registration to be the other party to the request for consent (see Supreme Court Order 201Ma1248, Sept. 14, 2011).

In addition, a registration of correction shall be made ex officio pursuant to Article 32(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, unless there is any error, such as omission of valid matters, error, etc., in the registration record of which computer is completed, inasmuch as the registration of correction is modified to satisfy the substantive relationship by correcting or supplementing the relevant part of the existing registration in order to correct the error, in which the registration does not coincide with the substantive relationship. Therefore, where a registrar finds any error, such as omission of valid matters, error, etc., in the registration record of which computer is completed, in the course of computer processing, the registration of correction ex officio pursuant to Article 32(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, unless there is a third party having an interest in the registration, and in such a case, the person entitled to a registration or the person obliged to file a registration may solely apply for the registration of correction of the meaning of demanding ex officio movement of an agency, such as the person obliged to file a registration, etc.

2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

A. In around 1971, the Korea National Housing Corporation constructed 23 apartment buildings of 700 households, Dong-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul (hereinafter “the instant apartment buildings”). The Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government ( Address 1 omitted), 932.6 square meters, ( Address 2 omitted), 95.2 square meters, ( Address 3 omitted), 602 square meters, ( Address 4 omitted), 589.4 square meters, ( Address 5 omitted), 1071.1 square meters (hereinafter “the instant apartment land”) are used as a playground or road for the instant apartment.

B. As to the instant land, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 31, 1971, 701, including the applicant, non-applicant 1, non-applicant 2, and non-applicant 2. The co-owner’s column of the land closure register of this case is written in each of the above co-owners’ names and addresses, without separately indicating co-ownership.

C. On March 26, 2001, the registrar entered the co-owners of the instant land as 701 shares, including the applicant, non-applicant 1, and non-applicant 2, and the co-owners’ co-ownership shares as 1/701 shares.

D. Meanwhile, according to the entry of the land closure register, the applicant filed an application for registration of the instant correction with the meaning of demanding ex officio movement with the registrar, while the applicant filed an application for registration of the instant correction on January 21, 2016, by asserting that each co-owner’s co-ownership of 701 co-ownership was erroneously stated as 1/701 shares due to the mistake of the registry officer in the process of computer transfer, even though the applicant ought to be deemed as 1/700 shares in co-ownership of non-applicant 1 and non-applicant 2’s co-ownership.

3. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the following is determined:

A. In a case where a co-owner’s co-owned share was registered differently from the pertinent co-owned share in the closed register due to the error of the registry officer in the process of computer transfer, the content of the registration is merely the subject of correction, and it does not need to separately obtain the consent, deeming the title holder as a third party with an interest in the registration, which is the other party to the request for consent. Thus, neither 1 nor 2, the co-owner of the instant land, nor 3, the co-owner

B. (1) Where the registration of ownership transfer is completed, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership based on legitimate grounds for registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da2727273, Sept. 24, 2004); the shares of co-owners are presumed to be equal (see, e.g., Article 262(2) of the Civil Act). In addition, where all co-owners’ shares are omitted in the item column of registration in the same priority number when the registration of real estate is computerized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 1010, 1567, Sept. 24, 2004).

(2) According to the entry of the land closure register of this case, the address of the co-owner 1 and the non-applicant 2 is one time, while all other co-owners are included in the name and address respectively.

However, inasmuch as the names outside of 1 and outside 2 are separately stated in the closed register of the instant land, and there is no indication of co-ownership, 701 co-ownership of 701 co-ownership of 701 co-ownership is presumed to be co-ownership of the instant land, and the co-ownership of 701 co-ownership of 701 co-ownership is presumed to be equal. Therefore, in the process of computer transfer, it cannot be concluded that the above co-owner’s entry of 701 as the same share (1/701 share) was made due to the mistake of an agency, such as the ground for ex officio correction, under Article 32(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act

(3) However, in light of the fact that the apartment complex of this case consists of 700 households and the land of this case has been used as play lots and roads corresponding to the common use area of the apartment of this case, the applicant filed an application for registration of correction of this case within the meaning of urging the registrar to make ex officio movement, and the special relation between the non-applicant 1 and the non-applicant 2 at the time of applying for registration of transfer of ownership of this case on December 31, 1971 to form a common household, such as a marital relation, and the special relation between the non-applicant 1 and the non-applicant 2 at the time of the application for registration of transfer of ownership of this case, or between the co-owners of this case 699 households among the apartment of this case, and the non-applicant 1 and the non-applicant 2 did not have any right to the above 699 households, and therefore, they can be interpreted as the co-ownership share of the above 699 households and the co-ownership share of the non-applicant 1 and non-applicant 2.

However, according to the records, it is insufficient to view that the applicant submitted the above data sufficiently at the time of the application for registration of correction of this case. Furthermore, in the event that the applicant files an objection on the grounds that the decision or disposition by a registrar is improper, a new fact or new method of evidence that was not asserted or submitted at the time of such decision or disposition cannot be used as a ground for objection (see Article 102 of the Registration of Real Estate Act and Article 1411 of the Rules on Registration of Real Estate Act). In addition, the applicant cannot submit these supporting materials additionally

4. Therefore, the order of the court below that held to the same purport cannot be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Article 32(2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, as alleged in the grounds of reappeal.

5. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)