(a) If an additional registration of transfer of the right to collateral security has been made, the other party to the request for cancellation of registration of creation of the right;

(b) Where the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage is cancelled, whether the additional registration is ex officio;

A. The supplementary registration by transfer of the right to collateral security is to specify the succession of the right by the registration of the existing establishment of the right in the register. The claim for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security is sufficient if the transferee only files a claim against the transferee, and the transferor has no standing to be the defendant in the claim for cancellation registration.

B. The supplementary registration prior to the establishment of a right to collateral security is dependent on the registration of the establishment of a right to collateral security, which is the existing principal registration, and thus constitutes the entire principal registration, and thus the secured obligation is extinguished, or where the registration of the establishment of a right to collateral security is null and void, it is necessary to cancel the registration of the establishment of a right to collateral security, which is the principal registration, and the supplementary registration shall be cancelled ex officio

(a) Article 156-2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act;

A. However, Supreme Court Decision 94Da17109 delivered on October 21, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 3070). Supreme Court Decision 67Da482 delivered on June 13, 1967 (No. 15B citizen58), Supreme Court Decision 67Da2558 delivered on January 31, 1968 (No. 16 ② citizen49). Supreme Court Decision 87Da2585 delivered on March 8, 198 (Gong198, 662) (Gong1989, 188).

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 94Na6504 delivered on December 16, 1994

The part of the judgment of the court below concerning forest land listed in the annexed Table 2 of the judgment below shall be reversed, and the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this part shall be revoked, and this part of the

The remaining appeals are dismissed.

The total cost of a lawsuit shall be divided into two minutes, one of which shall be the plaintiff and the other shall be borne by the defendant respectively.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Upon examining the records of this case, the court below was just in holding that the establishment registration of the creation of the neighboring forest of this case was made on the basis of show evidence, and the provisional registration under the name of the non-party 2, which was decided to be cancelled by the above non-party 1, did not cancel the provisional registration under the name of the non-party 2, and the provisional registration was made on the basis of the above provisional registration and the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the plaintiff was cancelled, so the secured claim secured by the above right to collateral does not exist at all, and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. We

However, according to the records of this case, it is recognized that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage was completed on September 15, 1987 with respect to the forest land stated in the above annexed Table 2 of the court below as the right to collateral security on September 17, 1992 with the defendant as the right to collateral security on September 17, 192, and the additional registration prior to the transfer of the right to collateral security was completed on September 3, 1992. Thus, the additional registration by transfer of the right to collateral security is sufficient for the transferee to make a request for cancellation of the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage as much as it is not new right due to the registration, and the transferor is not qualified for the defendant as to the cancellation registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 67Da482, Jun. 13, 1967; 67Da2588, Jan. 31, 196; 200Da19719, Oct. 17, 1994).

Therefore, the court below, which held that the defendant is liable to cancel the registration of the establishment of the above near the forest as stated in the above list No. 2, shall be deemed to have committed an unlawful act which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the standing to sue, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the part of the judgment of the court below concerning the forest as stated in the above list No. 2 shall be reversed, and it shall be decided as a member under Article 407 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court of first instance also held that the defendant is liable to cancel the registration of the establishment of the above near the forest as stated in the above list No. 2, since it is obvious that the judgment of the court of first instance is unlawful, and this part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed, and the remaining grounds of appeal by the plaintiff shall be dismissed

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)