Effect on a third party who has an interest in a restoration registration which fails to meet the requirements prescribed in Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act;

Where a third party who has an interest in a registration applies for a restoration registration, a written consent or a certified copy of a court judgment in opposition thereto shall be attached to the application. Thus, a registration which fails to meet such requirements shall be null and void in relation to a third party who has an interest in the registration.

Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da1505 Decided September 24, 1968

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellant No. 540,500

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na847 delivered on August 16, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

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

According to the provisions of Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, where an application for restoration of a cancelled registration is filed, if there is a third party who has an interest in the registration, the application shall be accompanied by a letter of consent or a certified copy of the judgment against the third party who has an interest in the registration (see Supreme Court Decision 68Da1505, Sept. 24, 1968). Thus, according to the legal established facts of the court below, the plaintiff is a third party with an interest in the registration at the time of applying for restoration registration due to the final and conclusive judgment of the provisional registration cancellation against the non-party 1, but the provisional registration in the above non-party 1's name is completed without being accompanied by the plaintiff's consent or a certified copy of the judgment against the plaintiff, and the ownership transfer registration in the above non-party 1's name is void in relation to the plaintiff, and thus, the ownership transfer registration in the above non-party 1's name is also invalid, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the ownership transfer theory and the title transfer registration in this case.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench regarding the burden of litigation costs.

Justices Cho Gi-port (Presiding Justice)