(a) Registration and the cause thereof;

(b) Validity of registration by an application filed in the name of the deceased;

A. Even though the cause of the transfer of ownership due to the transfer of ownership was the sale and purchase, it is not unconstitutional to disclose the transfer of ownership in substance, and it cannot be said that it is a registration consistent with the substance of the right, which is null and void.

B. Even if the registration is based upon an application for the name of the person liable for registration after the fact that the registration was made, the registration cannot be invalidated unless the person liable for registration was delegated to the former and his representative applied for by his authority.

Article 177 of the Civil Act, Articles 25 and 26 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Escopic acquisition

[Defendant-Appellee] The Head of Si/Gun/Gu and 1 others, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Busan District Court and Daegu High Court of the second instance

The main body is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are as follows: (a) as long as the plaintiff alleged that his title was wrong in the name of the defendant Kim Jong-chul's possession registration under the name of the deceased Kim Jong-chul's name and that the registration was duly established on the deceased Kim Jong-chul's name, the plaintiff's title registration was no longer valid in the name of the deceased Kim Jong-chul's name and thus, (b) the registration was no longer valid in the name of the deceased Kim Jong-chul's name and no valid in the name of the deceased Kim Jong-chul's name and no valid in the name of the deceased's name and no valid in the name of the deceased's name and no valid in the name of the deceased's title registration should be asserted for the reason that the registration was entered in the name of the deceased's name and no valid in the name of the deceased's name and no valid in the name of the deceased's name and no valid in the name of the deceased's name and no valid in the name of the deceased's title.

Even if the registration was made on the ground of sale and purchase due to donation, the registration cannot be deemed to be null and void as long as the registration is consistent with the substance of the right, and even if the registration was made upon the application of the person liable for registration after the expiration of the right, the registration cannot be deemed to be null and void as long as the person liable for registration for the registration was delegated with the right of representation and his agent was applied for by the right of representation. If the original judgment was determined on the records, the registration cannot be deemed to be null and void. Even though the original judgment is not sufficient, it is clear that the fact is recognized by evidence and it is clear that the registration was made under the name of the deceased regardless of the intention of the deceased, and the purport of determining the validity of the registration is clear and it is difficult to grasp the truth of the original judgment, and thus, the theory of lawsuit cannot be adopted. Accordingly, the theory of lawsuit based on the premise that the registration is null and void is all without merit, and it is obvious that the grounds for appeal are groundless, and it is so decided as per Disposition by Article 895 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Jong-il (Presiding Justice)