In requesting cancellation of registration, where a third party has involved in an act of disposal, the burden of proof as to the invalidity, such as that the third party has no authority to represent the former registration titleholder, etc.

If a third party is involved in the act of disposal, not by the direct act of the former registration titleholder, but by the latter, even if the former registration titleholder claims that the latter is the representative of the former registration titleholder, it is presumed that the registration of the former registration titleholder was duly made. As such, the former registration titleholder claiming cancellation on the ground that the registration is void, has the burden of proving that the former registration titleholder has not been authorized to represent the third party, that is, the latter registration titleholder, or that the third party has forged the registration document of the former registration titleholder, etc.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 261 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Do-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Park Jong-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 92Na26163 delivered on February 17, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

2. Where a third party is not a direct act by the former registrant, but a third party is involved in the act of disposal, even if the former registrant claims that the former registrant is the agent of the former registrant, the registration by the former registrant shall be presumed to have been duly made. As such, the former registrant claiming the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the registration is null and void must bear the burden of proving that the former registrant has not been authorized to act for the third party or that the third party has forged the registration document by the former registrant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 65Da837, Aug. 24, 1965; 91Da26379, 26386, Apr. 24, 1992).

However, in this case, the plaintiff asserted that the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage, which became the defendant, was completed on December 11, 1990 by the Seoul Civil Court, Gangnam-gu Office of 135967, and the maximum debt amount of 150,000,000,000 won, the debtor, the non-party 1, and the non-party 1, on behalf of the plaintiff without authority, as the establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage, was completed on behalf of the plaintiff without authority. In this case, the above establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage shall be presumed to have been completed lawfully. Therefore, it shall be proved that the plaintiff asserted that the registration is null and void, i.e., the above non-party 1

Therefore, the court below's disposition that held the plaintiff with the burden of proving the invalidity of the cause of the registration of the establishment of the mortgage of this case is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the burden of proof of the representative act.

3. In light of the records of the evidence presented by the plaintiff's legal representative on October 14, 191 and the non-party 2's testimony, etc. presented by the court below, the court below acknowledged that the non-party 2 delegated the right to establish the right to create the right to create the right to create the right to create the right to create the right to create the right to create the real estate of this case to the non-party 1 within the maximum of 50,000,000 won by considering the whole purport of the oral argument in light of the records, and even if the non-party 2 delegated the right to create the right to create the right to create the right to create the right to create the right to create the right to create the right to collateral of this case to the non-party 2 through the above non-party 2 with the maximum amount exceeding its maximum amount, it is also acceptable to the court below that the establishment of the right to create the right to create the right to collateral of this case is valid.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)