Whether the interest in the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the additional registration of mortgage transfer is recognized separately from the cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage (negative)

Articles 6 (1) and 156-2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 248 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Institution of Lawsuit]

Supreme Court Decision 95Da7550 delivered on May 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2262) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da19526 delivered on October 10, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2302)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Do-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju District Court Decision 2008Na5727 Decided February 6, 2009

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning each real estate listed in the attached list 1 through 9 shall be reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this part shall be revoked, and this part of the lawsuit shall be dismissed. The remainder of the appeal shall be dismissed. All costs

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The selection of evidence and fact-finding belong to the full power of the fact-finding court unless there are special circumstances such as violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that each of the real estate listed in paragraphs 1 through 20 of the annexed Table 1 in the judgment below, which the plaintiff owned by the plaintiff, was invalid as the ground for the establishment of a mortgage registration under the name of the deceased non-party 5 (Death on October 2, 1995), who was the deceased non-party 1, 2, 3, and 4, who was the deceased non-party 5 (the deceased on October 2, 1995), and the deceased non-party 1, who was the deceased non-party 5 (the deceased on October 2, 1995). With respect to each of the real estate listed in paragraphs 1 through 9, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's claim against the above designated parties, including the defendant, for the registration of transfer of each right to collateral security as of November 30, 206, the remaining real estate, and the execution of each of the registration procedure for cancellation of collateral on November 2, 1994.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and the plaintiff's assertion that the court below erred in incomplete deliberation or violation of the rules of evidence is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

However, the supplementary registration by the transfer of mortgage is to specify the succession of the right by the registration of the existing establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment, which is subordinate to the registration of the establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment, and thus, if the establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment is null and void of the original establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment, it is necessary to cancel the new registration ex officio upon cancellation of the principal registration (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da7550 delivered on May 26, 1995, etc.). As to each real estate listed in paragraphs 1 through 9 of the separate registration of the previous establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment of a new establishment, it is not recognized separately for the cancellation of the additional registration of the defendant's title.

Therefore, on November 30, 2006, under the premise that there is a legal interest in filing a lawsuit seeking cancellation of additional registration of transfer of right to collateral security under the name of the defendant as to each of the real estate listed in the annexed real estate list of this case, the court below held that the defendant is liable for registration of cancellation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the interest in the lawsuit as to the supplementary registration of transfer of right to collateral security, and thus, the judgment of the court below is reversed, but the decision of the court of first instance shall be made in accordance with Article 407 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is obvious that the judgment of the court of first instance as to this part of the annexed real estate list of this case is unlawful, and the part of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this part

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)