Cases where there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of real estate registration.

Even if each registration No. 4,5, and6 of the title section of the real estate registry becomes null and void by Article 91 of the former Enforcement Rule of the Registration of Real Estate Act (Supreme Court Regulation No. 63, Jan. 1, 60), in cases where all registrations prior to four of the entry in the title section of the above registration remains valid, according to this valid registration entry, Gap shall be the owner of 50 square meters in this case. In addition, according to the column of Section A of the above registration, if the plaintiff purchased 78 square meters in the land of this case from Gap to the plaintiff and registered for transfer of ownership in the front of the plaintiff, the registration of acquisition of ownership in the title section of the plaintiff in the above registration shall be valid in accordance with the substantive relation, unless there is any substantial cause under the substantive law.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Jeonju District Court Decision 68Na78 delivered on June 11, 1968

The part concerning principal lawsuit in the original judgment shall be reversed, and that part of the original judgment shall be remanded to the collegiate division of the Jeonju District Court.

We examine part of the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal.

The court below held as follows. In other words, since the registration of ownership transfer is also invalidated even after the registration of ownership transfer is made in the column A of the registry, the registration of ownership transfer will be made lawfully with respect to the land of this case. However, even if each registration of Nos. 319, 4, 5, and 6 (see, e.g., Chapter 192) is invalidated by Article 91 of the Enforcement Rule of the Real Estate Registration Act, all registrations of No. 4 out of the above title registration (see, e.g., Disposition No. 319, No. 4, 5, and 6) are valid (see, e.g., the first judgment of remanded case). According to the last registration of this case, the registration of ownership transfer from the Non-party No. 1 to the above title registration of this case is valid (see, e.g., the address omitted), and No. 510, Nov. 16, 1967).

On the other hand, at the time of original adjudication, the legal principles on the validity of the registration of real estate were to be erroneous. Accordingly, this appeal is with merit, and the part concerning the principal lawsuit among the judgment below shall be reversed, and this part shall be remanded to the collegiate division of the Jeonju District Court which is the original judgment.

This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.

The judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Net Sheet