[1] Whether there is a benefit in action to seek cancellation of the registration against the intermediate titleholder, regardless of whether the request for cancellation of the last titleholder of the ownership transfer registration made in succession is made (affirmative)

[2] The validity of a subordinated registration where a double ownership or share transfer registration has been made with respect to the same real estate or the same share (negative)

[1] Since each lawsuit seeking cancellation of the ownership transfer registration filed in successive order is common co-litigation, one of them can only seek cancellation against any one of them, and there is a benefit to seek cancellation of the registration against the intermediate registrant, regardless of whether the final registrant can seek cancellation of the registration.

[2] The priority order of the registered rights with respect to the same real estate shall be determined at the time and after registration unless otherwise provided in the Act, and the priority order number shall apply to the registration made in the Dong-gu of the registration site. Thus, where a double ownership or share transfer registration has been made with respect to the same real estate or the same share, unless senior registration is invalid or ex officio is revoked, subordinate registration shall be invalidated regardless of whether it conforms to the substantive legal relationship.

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 5 and 15 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Da9872 decided Apr. 12, 1991 (Gong1991, 171), Supreme Court Decision 93Da2095 decided Jul. 13, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2279), Supreme Court Decision 94Da47483 decided Oct. 12, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3726) / [2] Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Da2961, 87Da453 decided Nov. 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 197; 197Da19689 decided Apr. 16, 196 (Gong197, 197Da37269 decided Apr. 196, 196)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Han-il Bank Housing Association (Law Firm Han-dong Law Office, Attorneys Yu Gyeong-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 96Na34377 delivered on April 7, 1998

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal by the Intervenor joining the Defendant.

Since each lawsuit seeking cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed in succession is common co-litigations, only one of them may be claimed against any one of them, and regardless of whether it is possible to seek cancellation of the registration against the last registrant, no interest in the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the registration against the intermediate registrant is available. In addition, the priority order of the registered rights with respect to the same real estate shall be determined before and after the registration unless otherwise provided for in Acts, and the priority order of the registered rights with respect to the registration made in the Dong-gu of the registration form is based on the priority number (Article 5(1) and (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act). In the event that a double ownership or share transfer registration has been made with respect to the same real estate or the same share, the subordinated registration shall be deemed null and void regardless of whether it conforms to the substantive legal relationship.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant is liable to perform the procedure of cancelling the registration of cancellation of the share transfer in the name of the defendant, regardless of whether the plaintiff can seek cancellation of the registration in the name of the defendant, and further, in this case where there is no assertion or proof that the registration of transfer in the name of the defendant is invalid, the court below held that the defendant is liable to perform the procedure of registration of cancellation of the share transfer in the name of the defendant in the name of the plaintiff, the title holder of senior share transfer registration. The judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)