The case where registration does not coincide with the actual building but is deemed valid

Even if there is a difference between the actual building and its structure and the building on the registry of the building, the original building that is consistent with the indication on the registry was increased or reconstructed, and as long as there is no interested party on the registry, the indication on the registry is a valid registration indicating the present building, unless there is a separate ownership preservation registration on the building or no interested party on the registry.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da544 Decided June 27, 1978

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court Decision 79Na485 delivered on November 14, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below recognized the fact that the above non-party et al. jointly owned by three persons, including the non-party et al., 1 and 9-7 of business office of the above judgment, and the building, structure, etc. were increased or reconstructed to the present building as stated in its judgment. The above non-party et al. decided to transfer the above building ownership to the plaintiff as payment in kind of KRW 1,80,000 to the above non-party et al., after registration of ownership preservation in its name as to the above building, the above non-party et al. decided to transfer the ownership of the above building to the plaintiff as payment in lots of KRW 1,80,000 in the above non-party's debt amount to the above non-party et al., which caused the registration transfer in the future of the plaintiff, and it is just in light of the records of the evidence cooking as above, and there is no error of law as otherwise alleged in the court below's opinion 871 as to the above.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges on the charge of litigation costs.

Justices Cho Gi-port (Presiding Justice)