Cases where a registration of ownership transfer made based on an invalid registration during double preservation is valid;

If Gap purchased farmland distributed pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act and completed the registration of ownership transfer, even if the registration is based on a invalid registration that does not conform to the substantive legal relationship as a duplicate preservation registration, it has been completed on the basis of a valid registration due to distribution and redemption of Gap, so if it conforms to the substantive legal relationship and there is no third party having an interest in the land until it is registered, it shall be deemed valid.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Meu848 Decided August 23, 1983, Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2568 Decided March 22, 1988

[Judgment of the court below]

Attorney Han-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant in Daegu Metropolitan City

Daegu High Court Decision 87Jinna7 delivered on June 2, 1988

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the ownership transfer registration under No. 1711 of the former registry No. 10390 concerning No. 151 of the former registry No. 151 of the former registry No. 10390 was made on February 21, 1956 concerning the shares of 123.6/151 of the above 151, but as to the land in this case, the ownership transfer registration under the above No. 10390 was made on December 27, 1927 stating that the ownership transfer registration under the title of the plaintiff No. 1061 of the former registry was made on the ground that the ownership transfer registration under the title of the plaintiff No. 1016 of the former registry was made on the ground that the ownership transfer registration under the title of the plaintiff No. 10390 was not made on the title of the above 123th 6th 1, 1927.

However, according to the evidence No. 7-2 (Certified Copy of Register) and evidence No. 2-2 (Certified Copy of Register) employed by the court below, since the registration number No. 10390, which is the basis of the registration number No. 1711, was purchased on May 19, 1943 as to No. 151, "Non-Party 1", and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 20, 194, the above "Non-Party 1" was completed under the name of "non-Party 1," and the above registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 31, 1956 through Non-Party 3, 1956, and even if the above registration was completed on February 21, 197, the court below determined that the non-party 2 had no ownership transfer registration under the name of "non-party 1, 1711" or "non-party 126, the ownership transfer registration of which was made under the name of the court below.

Therefore, the court below should have reviewed whether the plaintiff purchased the above land from the non-party 3 or a third party who has an interest in the register of the above land until there is a registration under the name of the plaintiff, etc. and confirmed the validity of the transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff.

The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of registration of real estate, which held that the plaintiff does not own ownership, and thereby, did not exhaust all necessary deliberations. Therefore, the ground for appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Ma-tae (Presiding Justice)