The duty of consent of the interested parties in the restoration registration

If the provisional registration of the plaintiff's name and the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage have been cancelled without any cause, and the provisional registration of the defendants' name and the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage have been completed, the defendants are interested parties provided for in Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, and are obliged to give consent necessary for the procedures for the restoration registration

Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 69Da2193 delivered on February 24, 1970

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Daegu District Court of First Instance (72 Gohap311)

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

The Defendants agree to make a provisional registration to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer registration on December 8, 1970 with the registration received on December 11, 1970 from the Daegu District Court Decision 63964, Daegu-gu, Daegu-gu, Daegu-dong (number omitted) for the Plaintiff, and to make a registration for the restoration of the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage of the maximum amount of KRW 600 million with the registration received on the same day as the same day of the court, and the registration received on December 6, 1970 with the same day of the same court.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

As stated in the purport of the claim, the provisional registration and the establishment registration have been completed in front of the plaintiff on April 15, 1971, as stated in the above claim against the non-party 1, the provisional registration and the establishment registration were completed in front of the plaintiff on April 15, 1971, with the above court No. 22469, 22470. On April 15, 1971, the above provisional registration were filed for the establishment registration and the provisional registration procedure was cancelled on April 2472, 197 as the court receipt 22472, which was received by the defendants on April 15, 197, and the provisional registration was made for the preservation of the right to claim the establishment registration due to purchase and sale No. 54879, Oct. 8, 1971, the above provisional registration was issued to the non-party 3 through 8-1, 202, the non-party 2, and the remaining documents were delivered to the non-party 14.5.

The defendants asserted that the plaintiff's claims against the non-party 1 against the non-party 1 were repaid in full in concert with the defendants, so the plaintiff's evidence No. 1 is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion is groundless.

Therefore, each of the above registrations of the defendants is established after the plaintiff's above registration has been completed, and the defendants are affected by the legal relationship due to the restoration of each of the above registrations by the plaintiff. Thus, the defendants are obligated to give consent necessary for the procedure for recovery registration of the plaintiff, regardless of the defendants' good faith, bad faith, or negligence, for which the cancellation registration was cancelled without the plaintiff's intention as the above recognition is null and void.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection is justified and the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the same as this conclusion, is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act and is therefore justified, and is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 95 and Article 89 of the same Act as to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Sho-ho (Presiding Judge) Nowho-ho