Order of the principal registration made in accordance with the provisional registration to preserve the right to claim ownership transfer;

If a right preserved on the provisional registration for preserving the right to claim a transfer of ownership can be transferred to another person as a claim for the transfer of ownership, and if the above right to claim a transfer of ownership is preserved in order by the provisional registration, if the additional registration of a transfer of right is made on the provisional registration along with the transfer of such right, even if the principal registration is not made, it may be set up against another person by transfer of the right to claim a transfer of ownership pursuant to the said additional registration, and if the additional registration is made, the order of the provisional registration additionally registered shall be based on the order of the original provisional registration, which is the principal registration, and if the principal registration is made pursuant to the right to claim a transfer of ownership preserved on the provisional registration additionally registered, that order shall

Article 6 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Credit Guarantee Fund

Nonparty 1 and two others

The petitioner's application is dismissed.

On October 22, 1990, the registry official of the Jeonju District Court shall not cancel the decision to dismiss an objection against the cancellation of seizure against the applicant, and shall not cancel the registration of compulsory auction entry which has been made under the receipt No. 16,242 of the Jeonju District Court Branch Branch Decision 632-2 on the 298 square meters of the site of Jeon Sung-dong 632-2.

According to the records, the above registration of transfer of ownership was made in the name of non-applicant No. 33,179 as of November 21, 1979 with respect to the land of this case 632 to 298 square meters at fixed time (hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case"), and the transfer of ownership was made in the name of non-applicant No. 9,888 as of March 22, 198, and the provisional registration was made in the name of non-applicant No. 2. 16,242 as of the land of this case on June 5, 190, and the applicant received a decision to commence compulsory auction from the party member and received the decision to commence the compulsory auction, and the above registration of transfer of ownership was rejected ex officio by the applicant, and the public official of non-applicant 2 to whom the above registration of transfer of ownership transfer was revoked pursuant to the above provisional registration No. 1909, Aug. 27, 199; the above registration of transfer of ownership was revoked on the above provisional registration No. 291.

The applicant first asserts that the provisional registration is the priority of the provisional registration at the time of the principal registration and does not acquire any right by the provisional registration itself before the principal registration is made. Thus, even if the person having the right to the provisional registration has no right to transfer to another person before the principal registration and the provisional registration is transferred to another person without acquiring ownership after completing the principal registration, the transfer of the above provisional registration is not a transfer of right itself. Since the provisional registration in the name of 2 other than the applicant is transferred to the non-applicant 3 only by the provisional registration without completing the principal registration, the non-applicant 3 did not acquire any substantive right to the land of this case as the person who was assigned the above provisional registration and the non-applicant 3 did not acquire any substantive right to the land of this case. Accordingly, it is unreasonable that the non-applicant 3 did not acquire the ownership of the land of this case by directly obtaining the principal registration. Accordingly, it is improper that the registration of the member has completed only the principal registration applied by the non-applicant 3 as the provisional registration, and thus, cancelled the ownership transfer registration by the non-applicant 3.

However, the provisional registration is a registration made to preserve the order of priority as at the time the provisional registration is completed after preserving the claim called the above right to transfer the ownership of real estate against the owner. Therefore, since the above right to claim a transfer of ownership of real estate is a claim that is preserved by the provisional registration, it may be transferred to another person. However, if the above right to claim a transfer of ownership of real estate is preserved in priority by the provisional registration, the above right to claim a transfer of ownership of real estate under the above additional registration may be asserted against another person by transfer even if it has not been completed with the transfer of right and the provisional registration, even if it has been registered in title as at the time when the above right to claim a transfer of ownership was filed under the above provisional registration No. 543, Dec. 7, 1983, the above right to claim a transfer of ownership of real estate was not registered under the above provisional registration No. 591-3, which is not registered under the name of the Director of the Court Administration Office, and the order of priority in the provisional registration to claim a transfer of ownership is established under the provisional registration (see Article 6).

Next, the application is filed with the purport that the provisional registration in the name of non-applicant 2 is invalid without any substantive relation, and the provisional registration in the name of non-applicant 1, which was made by the non-applicant 2 to evade compulsory execution from the creditors, is null and void, and the provisional registration in the name of non-applicant 3, which was made based on the above invalidation registration, should not be cancelled. However, as alleged by the applicant for domestic affairs, even if the provisional registration in the name of non-applicant 2 was made falsely in order to evade compulsory execution, the registration officer only has the formal examination right, and it is not possible to make the false registration in the name of non-applicant 2. Thus, the applicant's above assertion on the premise that there is the authority to examine whether the above registration is false or not is made by the public official, is groundless without any need to further examine (see Supreme Court Order 81Ma140, Oct. 6, 1981). Thus, the disposition of cancelling compulsory execution by the above public official is justified, and all of the claims of the applicant are dismissed.

Judges Yu Jong-ju