The meaning of "where the case is not to be registered" under Article 55 (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act.

Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act provides that "where the case is not to be registered, it shall not be permitted by law by the purport of the application for registration itself." Thus, even if the document proving ownership of the person subrogated as provided in Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act is not prepared at the time of the application for preservation of real estate, it does not constitute "where the case is not to be registered".

Article 55 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Order 80Ma150 dated July 10, 1980 84Ma99 Decided April 6, 1984

Re-appellant

Gwangju District Court Order 86Ra39 dated December 3, 1986

The reappeal is dismissed.

As to the grounds of reappeal:

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below rejected the re-appellant's objection on the ground that, after the registration of a public official completes the registration procedure, unless the registration falls under "when the case is not registered" as provided in Article 55 (2) of the Registration of Real Estate Act, the registration public official cannot again cancel it pursuant to the procedure of Article 175 of the same Act, and the interested person is presumed not to have filed an objection pursuant to Article 178 of the same Act on the ground that the above "when the above case is not registered" can not be permitted by the purport of the application for registration itself, and it is obvious that the above "the above case cannot be permitted by law by the purport of the application for registration itself." As alleged by the re-appellant, the court below rejected the re-appellant's objection on the ground that it does not constitute "when the case is not registered" as provided in Article 55 (2) 2 of the same Act

The above determination by the court below is just and it is based on the opinion that the party member's precedent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 80Ma150, Jul. 10, 1980; Supreme Court Order 84Ma99, Apr. 6, 1984) and there is no error of misapprehension of legal principles or violation of judicial precedents such as the theory of lawsuit. We are without merit.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices O Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)