Criteria for determining whether or not the indication on the register is identical to that on the actual building

In determining whether or not the indications on the registry and the actual building are identical to those on the registry, the time of construction, the type of the building, the oil with different signs on the registry, and whether or not there is a possibility of confusion with other buildings, in addition to the lot number, building volume, and structure.

Article 131 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Jae-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and successor intervenor

Postal Housing Co., Ltd.

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 86Na1157 delivered on December 22, 1987

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Civil Procedure District Court.

The grounds of appeal (1) and (2) are examined.

The judgment of the court below held that, in order to be valid in the form of registration of specific real estate, at least the indication on the registry needs to be identical to that on the registry, to the extent that it is sufficient to disclose the actual management relations, and the actual title of the building of this case is the same as the indication of the building indicated in the attached table No. 2. The indication on the attached list No. 1 on March 15, 1983 on the registry as of March 15, 1983 cannot be deemed to have too obvious difference from the actual building in its location, building structure, and building. Therefore, the above registration is erroneous to the extent that it cannot be recognized as identical to the actual building, and thus, it cannot be said that there is an effect as a registration on the actual building of this case.

In determining whether a building is identical with a description on the registry, it should be determined by considering the following factors: the building's number, building time, type of the building including detached houses, apartment houses, apartment houses, etc., connected oil with different indication on the registry, and whether there is a risk of confusion with other buildings in addition to the lot number, building volume, building structure, apartment houses, etc. In comparison with the description of the building listed on the registry as a tenement house and the building listed on the attached Table 2 compared with the lower court's actual building, it can be seen that there is a little difference in the lot number indication as at the time of original adjudication, but its structure and thirth are almost the same. Furthermore, in addition to these lot number, building volume, building structure, and structure, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the identity with the indication on the registry and the actual building, and this is obviously contrary to justice and equity, and thus, the lower court's judgment is reversed and remanded to the collegiate division of Seoul Civil Court without the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)