Whether an owner may seek the implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership in addition to seeking the cancellation of the registration against the current registered titleholder who has failed to file for the restoration of the true registered name (affirmative)

In order to restore the true title of registration by a person who has already registered ownership or acquired ownership by law, it is also allowed to directly seek the implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure based on the "Recovery of the real title of registration" in addition to seeking the cancellation of the registration.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Institution of Lawsuit]

Supreme Court Decision 78Da1916 delivered on January 13, 1981 (Gong1981, 13631)(overruled), Decision 72Da1846, 1847 delivered on December 26, 1972 (No. 1981, 13631) (amended)

Korea

Attorney Kim Jong-dae et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na43390 delivered on April 18, 1989

The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed and this part of the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

(b) the case is remanded.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

For that reason, the judgment below rejected the part of the judgment below which confirmed that the real estate of this case was owned by the plaintiff, and that the ownership transfer registration procedure of this case was completed in the future of the defendant, through the non-party's decision, without any cause, because the real estate of this case was originally owned by the Minister of Lee king-si under the old king Property Disposal Act (No. 119), and was owned by the relevant public official due to the six-25 incidents, and that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the future of the defendant, and that the part that confirmed that the real estate of this case was owned by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff directly sought the implementation of the registration procedure of ownership transfer registration procedure, if the registration of this case was made without any cause, the defendant's claim for cancellation against the defendant cannot be claimed for a direct implementation of the

However, it is necessary to allow a person who has already registered ownership in his own future or who has acquired ownership by law to directly seek the implementation of the procedure of ownership transfer registration based on "the recovery of the real name" in addition to seeking the cancellation of the registration against the current registered titleholder in order to restore the real name of the registration.

This is because the purpose of the real estate registration system to indicate the process of changing real rights is to ensure the safety of real estate transactions by excluding registration that is not consistent with the fact ultimately, and disclosing the current state of rights as just by disclosing the current state of rights. On the other hand, the current registered titleholders have the duty to cooperate in the disclosure of the real owner, but there is no difference in the intrinsic aspect between the cancellation of his registration by the method of cancelling his registration or by the method of directly performing the registration of transfer to the real right holder on the registry, or between the real right holder on the registry and the loss of his registration even by any method.

Furthermore, in the instant case, where the registration of the instant real estate owned by the Plaintiff was completed through several persons without any cause, and the Plaintiff’s right to the registration was completed in the future of the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s right to seek a direct transfer registration against the Defendant, who is the final registered titleholder, for the purpose of restoring the real name of the registration, is far more helpful than seeking a cancellation of the registration in succession against the intermediate registered titleholders. Moreover, in the instant case, the Plaintiff’s right to seek a direct transfer registration against the Defendant, who is the final registered titleholders, cannot bring the same lawsuit again in the litigation procedure or litigation economy. As a final and conclusive lawsuit against the Defendant was filed against the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff seeking a direct transfer registration procedure against the Defendant along with the confirmation of ownership of the instant real estate. However, if only the part of the ownership confirmation is cited and the part of the claim for transfer registration is not accepted, the Plaintiff’s right to obtain a real ownership with no cause of the Defendant, and thus, in such a case, granting the Plaintiff a change to the real name of the registration to the Plaintiff cannot be determined to be more than 171816.

Ultimately, the court below decided that the real estate in this case was owned by the Minister for the Removal, and that the registration in this case in the name of the defendant was invalid, but it did not accept the plaintiff's claim for the transfer registration in this case on the grounds as stated in its reasoning, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles of the right to claim the transfer registration for the restoration of the true name. The argument has merit.

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-il (Presiding Justice) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jae-young, Lee Jae-ho, Lee Jae-ho, Lee Jae-ho, Lee Jae-ho, Lee Jae-won Kim Jong-ho, Kim Jong-young