Cases that can be recognized as falling under a third party with an interest under Article 171 of the Registration of Real Estate Act;

The case that the provisional registration right holder is a third party having an interest as provided in Article 171 of the Registration of Real Estate Act.

Article 171 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 3 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Appellant 1 et al.

Gwangju District Court Decision 66Ra91 delivered on September 29, 1967

I reverse the original decision.

This case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court.

As to the grounds for re-appeal by the agent of the claimant,

The facts and records admitted by the court below are as follows.

(A) According to the above judgment No. 1856, Dec. 11, 1953, the above provisional registration No. 2 was rendered against the non-appellant No. 1, and the provisional registration No. 2032, Jun. 25, 1960, the provisional registration No. 206, which was entered into by the non-appellant No. 1, and the non-appellant No. 2, the registration No. 96, which was entered into by the non-appellant No. 1, was revoked. 1, and the non-appellant No. 2, the non-appellant No. 96, which was entered into the above provisional registration No. 1, and the non-appellant No. 1, the non-appellant No. 2, the non-appellant No. 96, which became final and conclusive by the agreement on the cancellation of ownership transfer registration (the non-appellant No. 2, the non-appellant No. 96, and the non-appellant No. 1, the non-appellant No. 1, the non-appellant No. 2, were the non-appellant No. 1, and the non-appellant 16. 96.

Thus, the non-appeal and non-appeal 2 filed a claim against the non-appeal 2 and non-appeal 1 to cancel provisional registration and principal registration of the real estate. The non-appeal 1 filed a lawsuit claiming that the non-appeal 2 should transfer ownership of the real estate, and even if the judgment in favor of the non-appeal 1 rendered a favorable judgment, it cannot be deemed that the claimant is an interested party in cancelling the registration of the non-appeal 2, who is the person responsible for the principal registration based on the provisional registration. In addition, the claimant cannot be considered as an interested party in the cancellation of the registration of the non-appeal 1 and non-appeal 2, as well as the provisional registration right prior to the filing of the above lawsuit against the non-appeal 1 and the non-appeal 2, as recognized by the court below, and the ground for the above lawsuit against the non-appeal 1, 1965. Thus, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the "non-appeal 2 and non-appeal 1, which are the third party to the above provisional registration right."

Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judge Lee Young-su (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Judge) and Lee Dong-dong Gyeong-dong