In cases where each transfer registration of ownership due to the recovery of loss or destruction is duplicated because the registered titleholder is different with respect to the same real estate, the criteria for determining the heat between each registration for recovery and recovery shall be applied.

[Majority Opinion] Where a registration of initial ownership has been made in duplicate on the same real estate by different owners, it is reasonable to interpret that the initial registration of initial ownership is null and void under the current Registration of Real Estate Act adopting the first registration of initial ownership only unless the initial registration of initial ownership is null and void. Where each registration of initial ownership is made based on overlapping registration of initial ownership on the same real estate, the effect of registration is not to be determined after the prior registration of ownership transfer, but should be determined after the prior registration of initial ownership transfer, which is based on each registration of initial ownership transfer. Such registration is not different by the registration of initial ownership transfer. On the other hand, where one registration of initial ownership transfer has been made on the same real estate and another registration of initial ownership transfer has been made on the basis of a single registration of initial ownership transfer, and where each registration of initial ownership transfer has been made in duplicate on the basis that the registration of initial ownership transfer was made on the basis of recovery, etc., and where each registration of initial ownership transfer is presumed to be invalid on the basis of overlapping registration of initial ownership transfer, each of the registration of initial ownership transfer is presumed to be cancelled.

[Separate Opinion] One parcel of real estate is not applicable only where a registry is opened by registration of preservation of ownership. Since a registry is equally required even where a registry is opened by registration of preservation of ownership, an application for registration of restoration of ownership shall be dismissed under Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act even if the registration of restoration of ownership was made by the real owner, even if the registration of restoration of ownership was made by the real owner. Even in a case where multiple registers are opened by mistake and overlapping registration of restoration of ownership is made by mistake, the registration of restoration of ownership should have been rejected originally unless the first parcel of registration of restoration of ownership is invalidated by another cause. Thus, the majority opinion should interpret that registration of restoration of ownership should be invalidated as long as the first parcel of registration of restoration of ownership is invalidated by another cause, and the majority opinion does not agree with the fact that each registration of preservation of ownership based on registration of the same real estate is identical or duplicate registration of the same and each registration of restoration of ownership was made by duplicate registration of the same real estate.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 15, 24, and 79 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2961, 87Da453 Decided November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 178) Supreme Court Decision 94Da49274 Decided June 30, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2552) (amended) Supreme Court Decision 94Da60783 Decided November 29, 1996 (Gong197Sang, 153), Supreme Court Decision 97Da34693 Decided July 14, 1998 (Gong198Ha, 2116)

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

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Min Hong-seok, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 99Na11945 delivered on October 15, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Summary of the judgment below

A. Based on the evidence employed, the lower court: (1) on March 10, 1954, the date of receipt and receipt number of the previous registration under the name of Nonparty 1 was destroyed due to the incident of June 25, 1954; (2) on February 5, 1942, the cause of the previous registration was restored; and thereafter, on January 28, 197, the transfer registration under the name of Nonparty 4 was made under the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2; (3) on September 28, 1987, the provisional registration of the ownership transfer registration under the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2; (4) on March 3, 1995, the ownership transfer registration under the name of Nonparty 2 was made under the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 3; and (2) on March 198, 195, the registration was made under the name of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2; and (3) on March 28, 1995, the registration number of the previous registration was received.

B. As the Plaintiff’s restoration registration on the land of this case was completed under the name of Nonparty 1 based on the above non-party 3 without any substantive grounds for registration, such as the purchase of the land from the above non-party 1, or becomes null and void because the registration of ownership transfer was completed later than that of the above non-party 3, the lower court presumed that each of the above registrations was lawfully processed by the registration officer, even if the date of receipt, receipt number, and cause date of the former registration is unclear. On the other hand, the lower court asserted that the non-party 1 purchased the land of this case from the non-party 3 without any authority to recover the ownership transfer registration on the land of this case based on the premise that the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the above non-party 1, and that the non-party 1 had no authority to recover the ownership transfer registration on the land of this case based on the fact that the non-party 1 had no authority to recover the ownership transfer registration. On the other hand, it appears that the non-party 1 had no authority to recover ownership registration on the land of this case.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. If a registration of initial ownership has been made in duplicate on the same real estate, the registration of initial ownership should be interpreted as null and void under the current Registration of Real Estate Act adopting the first registration of initial ownership only unless the registration of initial ownership is null and void. If each registration of initial ownership is made based on overlapping registration of initial ownership on the same real estate, the effect of registration of initial ownership transfer should not be determined by the prior and following the registration of initial ownership transfer, but should be determined by the prior and following the registration of initial ownership transfer, based on each registration of initial ownership transfer. The registration of initial ownership transfer is not different by the registration of initial ownership transfer. On the other hand, if a registration of initial ownership transfer was made on the same real estate after a single registration of initial ownership transfer was made on the basis of a single registration of initial ownership transfer, and the registration of additional ownership transfer was made in duplicate on the basis of a different registration of initial ownership transfer before the destruction of the registration, and thus, the registration of additional ownership transfer becomes null and void as determined by the court below.

However, in a case where each registration of ownership transfer due to the recovery of loss is overlapped or copied, and where it is unclear at any time when each registration of ownership preservation is made because the registration of ownership preservation based on the same real estate is identical or double-registration is made, it is impossible to resolve the duplicate registration due to the above legal principle. In such a case, each registration of recovery presumed to have been duly made should be put in priority on the basis of the prior date of each registration date of recovery. In such a case, where each registration of ownership transfer is presumed to have been completed, the priority of each registration of recovery cannot be put in priority after the date of each registration of recovery of ownership transfer after the loss is completed. In such a case, the Supreme Court Decisions 94Da60783 Decided November 29, 196 and Supreme Court Decisions 94Da49274 Decided June 30, 1995 shall be modified.

B. Thus, it is unclear when the registration of preservation of ownership, which was based on each ownership transfer registration restored after the destruction of the land in this case, is the same registration or duplicate registration, and when each registration of preservation of ownership was made, and in this case where there is no circumstance to reverse the presumption power of each registration of restoration in this case, the registration of recovery under the above non-party 1, which was made first, shall take precedence over the above non-party 1, which was made first. The court below's reasoning was inappropriate but it was justified in rejecting the plaintiff's request for cancellation, and the ground for appeal is

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, except a separate opinion by Justice Song Jin-hun, Justice Lee Yong-woo, and Justice Zwon.

4. The separate opinion by Justice Song Jin-hun, Justice Lee Jin-hun, and Justice Zoo is as follows.

In order for the real estate registration system to function as a public announcement system of the relationship of rights, only one registry should exist for one real estate. To achieve this principle, the Real Estate Registration Act declares that the first one of the registrations should have been rejected unless the cause of the registration becomes null and void for any other reason, so that even if the real owner applies for a new registration, the registration of real estate should be dismissed even if the former owner applies for a new registration (Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act). Nevertheless, the Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2961, 87Da453 Decided November 27, 1990 regarding the case where a overlapping registration of ownership has been made for any reason, the first one of the registrations should have been rejected, so that the latter registration of ownership cannot be established ex post facto by declaring that the initial registration of ownership should be null and void unless the cause of the registration of ownership becomes void for any other reason.

However, such a principle of land for one real estate does not apply only where a registry is opened by registration of preservation of ownership, but also where a registry is opened by registration of preservation of ownership as in the instant case. Accordingly, even if a new registration of restoration of ownership was made by a real owner, even if a new registration of restoration of ownership was made by a real owner, the registration of restoration of ownership should be dismissed under Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act. In addition, even in cases where multiple registers are opened by erroneous registration of restoration of ownership, as in the case where multiple registrations have been made by mistake, the registration of restoration of ownership should have been rejected originally unless the registration of restoration of ownership is invalidated by other causes.

(2) The Majority Opinion states that, in cases where the registration of ownership transfer which was restored after the destruction of a registered titleholder is overlapped, registration of ownership shall be made more than one more after each registration of ownership preservation is made; (2) each registration of ownership transfer shall be made more than one more after the destruction of a registered titleholder if the registration of ownership preservation is the same; and (3) the priority of registration shall be determined after the first of each registration of ownership reinstatement if such circumstance is unclear; and (4) the Majority Opinion states that, in cases where the registration of ownership transfer is overlapping after the lapse of the registration of ownership preservation or the first of another registration of ownership transfer, it shall be determined more than nine more than one another after the lapse of the registration of ownership preservation; and (9) the Majority states that, in cases where the registration of ownership transfer is overlapping after the lapse of the registration of ownership preservation, it shall be determined more than nine more reasons for the registration of ownership preservation, which is the first of all the following.

In this case, the above non-party 1’s registration for the recovery of loss was completed first, and unless there is no circumstance to see that the registration for the recovery of loss was null and void, the registration for the registration for the recovery of loss is valid. Therefore, the above non-party 1’s registration for the recovery of loss, which is the first time. Therefore, the majority opinion is consistent with the conclusion of the majority opinion. However, it is hard to agree with the majority opinion that the registration for the preservation of ownership, based on each transfer of ownership, which is based on the registration for the registration for each transfer of ownership, which is destroyed and recovered from the same real estate, is the same registration or duplicate registration, and each registration for the preservation of ownership was made only if it is not revealed at the time of the registration for the recovery of ownership after the destruction

The final judgment of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) shall be delivered with the assent of all Justices Song Jin-hun who reviewed the appeal of this case, with the assent of all Justices Lee Jin-hun.