Whether or not a claim may be made by means of a lawsuit to implement the procedures for restoring the real estate register site closed by an unlawful procedure or method

In the event of the closure of the real estate registration form, even if the closure of the building site was illegally made, the execution of the restoration procedure cannot be claimed by means of a lawsuit. The restoration of the closed real estate registration form is bound to follow the procedures for the indication, indication number, and registration number of the real estate as at the end of the title page, and in its nature, it cannot be viewed as a kind of registration of rights, and the existence of the person liable for registration cannot be presented. Thus, even though the real estate registration form was closed or its closure was made in an unlawful procedure or method without any grounds for closure as prescribed by the snow Act, it is obvious that the registration officer can recover it ex officio by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions of the Act on the Grounds for and Procedure for Closure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 1222, May 22, 1992).

Articles 26 and 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da1389 decided Dec. 9, 1980 (Gong1981, 13508) (Gong1981, 13508) 87Meu1097 decided Dec. 22, 1987 (Gong1988, 334) (Gong1988, 1259)

Gu studio

Attorney Sucheon-gun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Changwon District Court Decision 93Na1392 delivered on June 25, 1993

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Changwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 1, who was the leader of Sodong-dong, which was under the defendant's jurisdiction based on the evidences of the trial, agreed on May 30, 1975 to cancel the title trust agreement with the plaintiff on March 25, 1975, the title of title No. 1609, which is the registry office of Changwon District Court, was cancelled by requesting the cancellation of the registration of the land of this case by preparing a false document as if the land of this case was included in the land of this case and the land of this case was paid instead of the land of this case. At the time of the above cancellation, the joint defendant 1 of the court below had completed the ownership transfer registration with the receipt No. 3645, Feb. 17, 1965. However, the above title trust registration was made in accordance with the above title trust agreement with the plaintiff and the plaintiff agreed on the cancellation of the above title trust agreement with the above land of this case, and according to this decision, the defendant's obligation to cancel the above registration of this case 305.

2. However, even if the closure of the real estate registration site was made in an unlawful manner, it is the opinion of the party members that a claim for the implementation of the restoration procedure cannot be made by means of a lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu177, Sept. 6, 1988; 87Meu1097, Dec. 22, 1987).

The restoration of the closed real estate registration form is bound to be followed by the procedure for covering the indication, indication number, and registration number of the real estate as at the end of the title page, and in its nature, it cannot be deemed as a kind of registration of rights, and the existence of the person liable for registration cannot be presented. Thus, even though the registration form for real estate is closed or it is objectively evident that the closure is made by illegal procedure or method despite the absence of the grounds for closure as prescribed by the New Building Act, the restoration of the closed real estate registration form can be claimed ex officio by applying mutatis mutandis the provisions on the grounds for closure and the procedure, etc. (see Article 468 of the Regulations on the Grounds for Closure and the Procedure, etc.).

Thus, even though the plaintiff's lawsuit seeking the recovery of the closed real estate registration site against the defendant is illegal against a person who has no standing to be a party, it cannot be deemed that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the recovery of the closed real estate registration site, which the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim. Thus, the court below's judgment cannot be maintained in this regard without the need to make a decision on

3. The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)