Where the buyer of a real estate which became the object of a provisional registration loses ownership by making a principal registration based on the provisional registration thereafter, the provisions applicable mutatis mutandis to the liability for warranty (=Article 576 of the Civil Act)

If a purchaser of a real estate which was the object of a provisional registration loses ownership of the real estate after a principal registration based on the provisional registration has been made thereafter, it is similar to the forfeiture of ownership acquired by the purchaser due to the exercise of a mortgage or chonsegwon established on the real estate for the purpose of sale. In such a case, it is reasonable to regard the provision of Article 576 of the Civil Act as applicable mutatis mutandis, and to assume the liability for warranty as prescribed in Article 570 of the Civil Act. It cannot be said that

Articles 570 and 576 of the Civil Act

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant 1 and one other

Busan High Court Decision 91Na1896 delivered on May 6, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff purchased the shares in the land of this case from Defendant 1 to complete the registration of transfer under Defendant 2's joint and several sureties, but the principal registration based on the provisional registration of the name of the non-party, etc. that was completed prior to that date has been completed, and the registration in the name

2. In a case where the purchaser of a real estate, which was the object of a provisional registration, loses the ownership of the real estate following the completion of the principal registration based on the provisional registration, it is similar to the case where the purchaser loses the ownership of the real estate due to the exercise of mortgage or right of lease on a deposit basis established for the sale purpose. In such a case, it is reasonable to regard the provision of Article 576 of the Civil Act as applicable mutatis mutandis and to assume the liability for warranty as stipulated in Article 570 of the same Act, and it cannot be said that

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the seller's warranty liability.

The issue is that the registration of a mortgage or a right of lease on a deposit basis can easily be known to the purchaser, while provisional registration can not be easily known to the purchaser, so it should be viewed differently, but it cannot be accepted.

3. As such, the court below acknowledged the defendants' liability for warranty pursuant to Article 576 of the Civil Act, and therefore, it does not affect the conclusion of the case as to whether the court below's explanation about the warranty liability is appropriate in the case falling under Article 569 of the same Act.

Therefore, there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Choi Young-young (Presiding Justice)