logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1980. 6. 3.자 80마219 결정
[등기공무원의각하결정에대한이의][집28(2)민,34;공1980.8.1.(637),12908]
Main Issues

In the case of principal registration on the basis of provisional registration, the ex officio cancellation of registration by the registry official.

Summary of Judgment

Where a person entitled to provisional registration has made the principal registration of transfer of ownership based on it, the registrar may cancel the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of a third party after the provisional registration.

[Reference Provisions]

Article 5 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Articles 175, 176, and 177 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Re-appellant

Appellant 1 et al.

United States of America

Seoul Central District Court Order 80Ra36 Dated March 17, 1980

Text

All reappeals are dismissed.

Reasons

The Re-Appellants' grounds for reappeals' respective reappeals' grounds as stated in the reappeals' grounds and reappeals' grounds are examined.

According to the records and the reasoning of the original decision, the court below recognized that the provisional registration for preserving the right to claim ownership transfer was lawful on February 14, 1977 for the purpose of preserving the right to claim ownership transfer on the part of the non-Appellant 1, as stated in the reasons for the decision. On October 10, 1977, when the principal registration based on the provisional registration was completed on February 13, 1978, and the provisional registration was duly completed on February 13, 1978 as stated in the reason for original decision, and the former registration was completed on February 175 and Article 176 of the Registration of Real Estate Act as stated in the reason for original decision. The registration officer recognized the cancellation ex officio of the registration of ownership transfer on the part of the above re-Appellant 2, and determined that the above provisional registration was unlawful ex officio by misapprehending the legal principles as to the registration ex officio, and thus, the court below's decision is justified.

Therefore, all reappeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Justice)

arrow
심급 사건
-서울민사지방법원 1980.3.17.자 80라36