In cases where a registration of ownership transfer has been made differently from the registered titleholder with respect to the same real estate, whether there is a benefit in filing a lawsuit to seek implementation of the registration of ownership transfer because the person who has received the registration of ownership transfer from an effective pre-registration injury is again null and void (negative)

Where a registration of ownership preservation overlaps with another registration titleholder on the same real estate, unless the first registration of ownership preservation becomes null and void, the registration of ownership preservation made after the first registration of ownership preservation is null and void, so if the plaintiff purchases the land from the defendant and is registered as a legitimate owner after completing the registration of ownership transfer on the valid pre-registration ledger, even though the plaintiff stated that the land was purchased from the non-party, the plaintiff would have acquired the ownership of the above land in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Therefore, there is no interest in the lawsuit to seek again against the defendant, who is the registration titleholder, because it is based on the latter invalid register after it is

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 15 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2961, 87Da453 Decided Nov. 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 178) Decided Dec. 26, 1990 (Gong1991, 607)

The Order of Immigration;

Magalia

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant ordered the plaintiff to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for sale on April 21, 1978 with respect to 339 square meters (1,121 square meters) in Daegu Suwon-dong 437-1 Sim-dong (1,121 square meters).

According to the above evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 4 through 6, and No. 8, the plaintiff purchased the land indicated in the purport of the above claim from the defendant on April 21, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") at KRW 5,00 for an ordinary time by purchasing at least 5,00 the land registered in the name of the non-party 1 on the 5th day after the transfer registration was entered in the name of the non-party 1, 4 through 76, and the registration number No. 1, which was entered in the name of the non-party 1 to the above 4th day after the transfer registration was entered in the name of the non-party 1 to the above 5th day. The registration number of the non-party 1 to the above 4th day after the transfer registration was entered in the name of the non-party 1 to the above 5th day after the entry in the name of the non-party 1 to the above 4th day after the transfer registration was entered in the name of the non-party 1, Kim and the non-party 2.

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judge Song Jae-nam (Presiding Judge)