[1] Whether the owner may seek cancellation of registration against the person who actually made the registration under the name of the deceased or an unincorporated entity that is detrimental to the ownership of the true owner on the registry, in case where there exists a false registration under the name of the deceased or an unincorporated entity (affirmative)

[2] Whether the concept of a person liable for registration can exist in the registration of change in the indication of a registered titleholder (negative), and whether a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of registration against a person who is not a person liable for registration is legitimate (negative)

[1] Where a false registration that interferes with the ownership of a true owner on the registry exists, and the registered titleholder is an organization without a person or entity, the owner may seek cancellation of the registration in the name of an organization without a person or entity whose name the actual act of registration was committed under the name of an organization without such person or entity, as a removal of interference based on the ownership.

[2] The registration of change in the indication of a registered titleholder is limited to a case where the indication on the registration is made in order to coincide with the actual registration within the extent where the identity of the registered titleholder is maintained, and it does not cause any change in the right, so even in a case where the registration is erroneous, the registered titleholder shall make a registration of correction by preparing a prescribed document again. Therefore, there is no concept of the person liable for registration. Meanwhile, a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of registration against a person who is not the registered titleholder, i.e., a person who loses his right or is not the person who is not the person who is not the registered titleholder (the registered titleholder or the general successor

[1] Articles 186 and 214 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 23(6) and 52 subparag. 1 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 52 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Da684, 90Meu3307 decided May 8, 1990 (Gong1990, 1247), Supreme Court Decision 2008Ma615 decided July 11, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1158) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 92Da39167 decided Nov. 13, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 110), Supreme Court Decision 93Da3925 decided Feb. 25, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1093)

Plaintiff (former name: omitted before the name of the deceased)

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na40765 decided July 9, 2015

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a false registration that interferes with the ownership of a true owner on the registry exists and the registered titleholder is an organization without a person or an entity, the owner may seek cancellation of the registration in the name of an unauthorized person or an organization without an entity representing the person who actually performed the registration under the name of an organization without such person or entity, as a removal of interference based on the ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Da684, May 8, 1990; 2008Ma615, Jul. 11, 2008).

The registration of change in the indication of a registered titleholder is limited to a case where the indication on the registration is made in order to coincide with the actual registration within the scope where the identity of the registered titleholder is maintained, and it does not bring any change in the right, so even in a case where the registration is erroneous, the registered titleholder shall make a registration of correction by preparing a prescribed document again, and therefore, the registered titleholder shall not have the concept of the person liable for registration (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da39167, Nov. 13, 1992). Meanwhile, a lawsuit against a person liable for registration, namely, a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of registration against a person who is not a person who loses his right or is not a person who is not a party eligible for registration (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da3925, Feb. 25, 1994).

2. On the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case against the Defendant, who is not a person responsible for registration, was unlawful against the Plaintiff, for the purpose of tax exemption, on the ground that the Plaintiff donated the instant land and the instant building, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of an organization with no substantial substance for the purpose of tax exemption, and thus, is null and void. In this case, the Nonparty, who is the owner, is entitled to file a claim for cancellation of invalid registration, based on the registration of ownership transfer in the name of an organization with no substantial entity as the Plaintiff who actually performed the registration in the name of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s supplementary registration based on the change of the representative of the organization, was not a person responsible for registration related to the registration of ownership transfer.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by violating the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles on the person liable for registration,

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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Seon-soo (Presiding Justice)