In the case where a judicial compromise is formed to confirm the ownership of the title holder by waivering the right to claim cancellation registration in the lawsuit for cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the ground that it is invalid, the validity of provisional registration based on the above invalid registration

In a lawsuit for cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the ground that it is null and void of a cause, if a judicial compromise has been established with the purport that the right holder renounces his/her right to claim cancellation registration and determines it as owned by the title holder of the registration, the above real estate owned by the title holder in the name of cancellation shall be confirmed as owned by it, and the registration in that name shall be converted into a valid registration consistent with the substantive relationship, and as long as the provisional registration in the name of a third party, which was recognized as null and void solely on the ground that it was based, has been granted a valid registration in that name, the provisional registration in that name shall be restored to a valid registration by removing

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 206 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant’s Attorney Final Confession

Suwon District Court Decision 85Na418 delivered on February 21, 1986

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

On June 20, 1979, with respect to the real estate of this case for which the registration of ownership transfer has been made under the name of the plaintiff, the non-party was registered in the name of the non-party on August 19, 1981 by the judgment in favor of the case of winning the claim for ownership transfer against the plaintiff, and accordingly, the provisional registration of the non-party was made on August 19, 1981, and the lawsuit of the non-party became final and conclusive because the plaintiff's address was falsely stated and the original copy of the judgment was not served on the plaintiff. As such, the non-party's registration of ownership transfer and the provisional registration of the defendant's name were null and void. Furthermore, on September 7, 1981, where the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the non-party, and the plaintiff could not seek cancellation of the above provisional registration on the ground that there was a judicial compromise with the non-party's confirmation that it was valid in the name of the non-party, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration becomes void.

In order for the court below to make the provisional registration of the name of the defendant null and void, the registration between the plaintiff and the defendant should not be examined more as to the grounds for invalidation of the cause. Since the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of judicial compromise and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, the court below is recognized as falling under Article 12 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the

Therefore, 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 Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)