Whether registration not falling under subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act may be asserted as an objection under Article 178 of the same Act among registration completed by a registry official upon application or ex officio (negative) and the meaning of "where a case is not registered" under subparagraph 2 of Article 55 of the same Act.

Subparagraph 1 and 2 of Article 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and Article 178 of the same Act

Supreme Court Order 95Ma1700 Decided March 4, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1189) Supreme Court Order 99 Jaema4 dated January 7, 200 (Gong2000Sang, 547) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da29240 Decided September 29, 200 (Gong200Ha, 2211)

Hyundai Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Rate, Attorneys Yoon Yong-pop et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Suwon District Court Order 2003Ra149 dated October 28, 2003

The order of the court below shall be reversed, and the decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

Where a registrar makes an active disposition upon an application by an applicant or ex officio after completing the registration procedure, he/she shall not dispute the validity of the registration in a lawsuit unless it falls under subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act even if such disposition is unfair, unless it falls under any of subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 55 of the Registration of Real Estate Act. Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that "where a case is not registered" means where it is obvious that the purport of the application for registration itself cannot be permitted by law (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 95Ma1700, Mar. 4, 1996; Order 9Ma4, Jan. 7, 2000).

In this case, the registration officer of Suwon District Court completed the principal registration based on the provisional registration of this case with respect to each real estate of this case according to the application of the re-appellant, and then notified ex officio cancellation under Article 175 of the Registration of Real Estate Act to the Republic of Korea (the chief of the regional tax office) who is the right holder of the provisional registration of this case after the provisional registration of this case. Since the provisional registration of this case is a provisional registration of this case, even if the provisional registration of this case was completed on the basis of the provisional registration of this case, the provisional registration of this case is a provisional registration of this case, and even if the provisional registration of this case was completed on the basis of the provisional registration of this case, the seizure registration of this case completed after the provisional registration of this case still remains valid, and

As to this, the Republic of Korea (the head of the regional tax office) filed an objection pursuant to Article 178 of the Registration of Real Estate Act by asserting that the provisional registration of this case is a provisional registration of this case, and thus, it cannot be cancelled ex officio the registration of this case.

However, the registration of cancellation falling under the affirmative disposition of a registered public official is not applicable to "when the case is not registered" under Article 55 (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and it is necessary to correct it by means of litigation, etc., and it cannot be immediately corrected as an objection under Article 178 of the Registration of Real Estate Act. Therefore, the objection of this case

Thus, the court of first instance that accepted the objection of this case and revoked the cancellation disposition for the registration of this case, and ordered the restoration of the cancelled seizure registration of this case, and the order of the court below that maintained it as it is, there was an error of law as above.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the order of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient for the court to directly decide on this case, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)