(a) Requirements for registration of preservation of ownership in respect of a building to be valid as a registration publicly notified of the objective and physical status of the building;

(b) Whether the identity is recognized between a indication of the registry and the actual building where the indication of "A" and "B" indicated outside of two buildings in row houses is indicated subsequent to the registry (affirmative)

(a) The issue of whether the registration of initial ownership in respect of a building is effective as a registration publicly announcing the objective and physical status of the building in question shall be determined depending on whether the material, lot number, type, structure and size indicated in the register are consistent with the generally accepted social norms with the real building;

B. If the location, lot number, type, structure, etc. of the building mentioned in the indication column of the registry of "A" 104, a tenement house, the registration of ownership preservation of which was made in the name of the non-party, coincide with those of the actual building, only the reason why the indication of "A" and "B" are indicated as "A" and "A" in the registry because the actual indication of "A" and "B" are followed by a subsequent change, it cannot be deemed that the identity between the indication of the registry and the actual building is not recognized. Therefore, it cannot be concluded that the above registration of ownership preservation on "A tenement house" as to "A" 104, the above registration of ownership preservation of a tenement house is not effective as a registration on the list of "A" 104, Dong 104

Articles 15 and 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da163 delivered on December 8, 1981 (Gong1982, 129) (Gong1986, 1094) 85Meu122 delivered on July 22, 1986 (Gong1986, 1094) (Gong1987, 1130) 88Meu416 delivered on February 28, 1989 (Gong1989, 528)

Kim Hong-ge

Mazinus

Daejeon District Court Decision 88Na832 delivered on December 29, 1988

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The case shall be remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The plaintiff's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The court below held that, even if the above apartment house with 22 square meters on the 15th ground of the same 350-dong, it is hard to view that the above apartment house has been constructed on the 15th unit of 350-dong, and that the whole structure and area of the apartment house and the structure or area of each household are the same as that of the whole when the constructor who constructed the above 2 apartment house unit sell it in units, the left side of the apartment house has been indicated as "B", and that there is no such indication on the outside of the building of the above 4 apartment house, the initial design map as to the above 19-dong house is different from the actual building indication on the 4th unit of the building, so it is difficult to view that the above 4th unit of the apartment house and the above 4th unit of the building have the ownership transfer registration on the 14th unit of the building, unlike the actual building indication on the 4th unit of the building, the ownership transfer registration of the above 14th unit of the building has been changed.

2. Whether the registration of preservation of ownership of a building has its effect as a registration to publicly announce the objective and physical status of the building in question, is determined depending on whether the location, lot number, type, structure and size, etc. indicated in the registry are consistent with the generally accepted social norms with the actual building. In this case, as determined by the court below, if the location, lot number, type, structure and size of the building stated in the indication column of the registry as to the "multi-family housing" in the name of Non-party Kim Sam-tae in the name of Non-party Kim Jong-tae, as determined by the court below, are mutually different from those of the actual building, the reason why the indication of "A" and "B", which are indicated outside the two units of the above apartment housing, are changed subsequent to the indication of the building, are not recognized to be identical with the indication of the registry, so it cannot be concluded that the registration of preservation of ownership as to "A" in Article 104 of the same Act is not effective as a registration on the same building.

The non-party Kim Jong-tae, at the time of registration of ownership preservation in his own name, deemed to be his own ownership and registered as "A" and as to "A" 104 Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong 104 (the actual building indication) if not, it is difficult to confirm that the non-party's registration was made in his own name by acquiring the right from the owner of the above non-party's actual left apartment house or 104 Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong Dong, and registered ownership preservation in his own name. If "A" is stated in the indication of the registry as "A", the registration can be presumed to have been owned by the above non-party.

3. Therefore, the court below should have deliberated on whether the acquisition of the right by the non-party Kim Jong-tae's real right and the registration of preservation of ownership is 104,00,000,000,000, and should have judged whether the registration is effective as a registration to manifest the above building. However, the court below did not properly examine this issue, and it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the registration of preservation of ownership, which is not proper or erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the registration of preservation of ownership. Since it is obvious that such illegality affected the judgment, there is a ground for reversal of Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)