[1] Whether a person who is true on the registry may seek cancellation of registration under the name of a person who has committed an act of false registration under the name of a person without permission (affirmative), and whether a disposition of prohibition of disposal may be taken to preserve the aforementioned (affirmative)

[2] In a case where a registrar's decision or disposition is unfair in light of the relevant provisions but can be seen as being justifiable as a result for other substantive reasons, whether an objection can be rejected (negative)

[1] In a case where a false registration that interferes with the ownership of a true owner on the registry exists, and where the registered titleholder has no person or entity, the owner may seek cancellation of the registration in the name of an unauthorized person or an organization without an entity representing the person who actually performed the registration under the name of such unauthorized person or organization without an entity, as a removal of interference based on the ownership. In addition, the owner may take a provisional measure against the person who actually performed the registration in order to preserve the right to claim cancellation.

[2] In a case where an objection is filed pursuant to Article 178 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, the court shall determine whether the pertinent decision or disposition by a registrar with the authority of formal review is unfair in light of the relevant provisions of the Registration of Real Estate Act. Thus, where the pertinent decision or disposition by a registrar is deemed unfair in light of the relevant provisions, the objection shall not be rejected without permission even if it can be deemed unfair due to other substantive reasons.

[1] Articles 186 and 214 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 178 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 90Da684, 90Meu3307 decided May 8, 1990 (Gong1990, 1247)

[Judgment of the court below]

Daejeon District Court Order 2007Ra357 dated March 31, 2008

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Where a false registration that interferes with the ownership of a person who is true on the registry exists, and the registered titleholder has no person or entity, the owner may seek cancellation of the registration in the name of an unincorporated person or organization without an entity representing the person who actually performed the registration under the name of an unincorporated person or organization without an entity as a result of the ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da684, 90Meu307, May 8, 1990). In addition, the owner may impose a provisional disposition against the person who actually committed the registration in order to preserve the right to claim cancellation.

On the other hand, in case where an objection is filed under Article 178 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, the court shall determine whether the relevant decision or disposition by a registrar with the right to formal review is unfair in light of the relevant provisions of the Registration of Real Estate Act. If the relevant decision or disposition by a registrar is deemed unfair in light of the relevant provisions, the objection shall not be rejected without permission even if it can be deemed unfair due to other substantive reasons.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below rejected the appeal against the above registrar's decision on provisional disposition, on the ground that the re-appellant's request for cancellation of registration and provisional disposition to preserve it against the non-party as a person who actually registered the transfer of ownership under the name of "the non-party" as an organization with no entity, and thus, the court below rejected the above provisional disposition on the ground that the registered titleholder and the debtor did not coincide with the above provisional disposition order on the request for provisional disposition against the above non-party, although the court below rejected the above provisional disposition on the ground that the re-appellant's request for provisional disposition against the above non-party against the above non-party for provisional disposition on the ground that there is no vindication as to the right to be preserved,

However, in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the record, the above measures of the court below were no longer maintained as unlawful.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)