The effect of the provisional registration cancelled when the ownership was registered by mistake in the judicial record entrusted with the execution of the principal registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the provisional registration of the first priority, and the effect of the provisional registration cancelled.

In the event that the ownership transfer registration becomes ex officio after the principal registration of ownership transfer based on the provisional registration is completed due to a mistake by a judicial clerk entrusted by the first provisional registration authority with the affairs concerning the implementation of the principal registration procedure based on the provisional registration and the registration of ownership transfer was completed, even if the first provisional registration is made by mistake or negligence of a judicial clerk, the effect of the disclosure should be invalidated in order to protect the safety of transaction in relation to a third party.

Articles 169 and 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Central District Court (71 Gohap7937) in the first instance trial

1. Revocation of the part against the Defendants in the original judgment and the Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the first and second instances.

On May 11, 1970, the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of provisional registration between the Plaintiff, Nonparty 1, and Defendant 2 against Seoul Civil District Court 71 Gohap877, the Plaintiff accepted the Plaintiff’s application for a provisional registration to preserve the claim for a transfer of ownership due to the purchase and sale reservation, which was made with No. 16694 on May 21, 1970 as to the real estate recorded in the attached list based on the final judgment.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants.

It is called the judgment such as the order.

The provisional registration of the first order to preserve the right to transfer ownership on May 21, 1970, which was obtained on the real estate in the separate list owned by the non-party 2, was completed on May 21, 1970 by the Yongsan District Court No. 16694, which was obtained on May 21, 1970. The provisional registration of the second order to preserve the right to transfer ownership on the same real estate was obtained on June 2, 1970, No. 18458, which was obtained on May 13, 1970, and the second order provisional registration to preserve the right to transfer ownership was made on the real estate in the second order. However, the first order provisional registration to the plaintiff was cancelled on September 12, 1970, and the second order was cancelled on the second order of the plaintiff's provisional registration to the effect that the second order had not been cancelled on the above provisional registration, and the second order registration of the plaintiff's second order was accepted on the second order of the plaintiff's second order.

Therefore, the cancellation of the provisional registration of this case is cancelled by the application of a judicial assistant, who is an agent delegated by the person having the right to provisional registration, regardless of the person having the right to provisional registration or by the illegal act of a person other than the person having the right to make provisional registration, because the provisional registration is cancelled by mistake or negligence on the part of the person having the right to make provisional registration, even if there was a mistake or negligence on the representative of the interpreter, it is interpreted that the provisional registration of this case was cancelled as in this case, and that the relation against the defendant, etc. who is a bona fide third party who has completed

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the acceptance of the application for recovery registration is without merit, under the premise that the provisional registration of the plaintiff cancelled is still effective, and thus, it is dismissed. The court below erred by accepting the plaintiff's claim of this case with different conclusions. Thus, this part of the defendants' appeal is justified, and this part of the defendants' appeal is accepted, and the part of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of the losing party

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Kim Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)