A. Whether it is possible to register the restoration of registration voluntarily made by the parties (negative)

B. The meaning of "third party having an interest in the registration" as to the registration of cancellation and recovery under Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

A. Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act refers to a registration that has the same effect as having no effect of cancellation retroactively at the time of cancellation, in cases where any registration was cancelled in whole or in part due to substantial or procedural defects, and the cancelled registration was cancelled and thus, if a party voluntarily made a registration of cancellation, a registration of cancellation cannot be made.

B. The third party's disturbance with interest in the registration under Article 75 of the same Act refers to a person who is likely to sustain a loss if the registration is made for the recovery of cancellation, and the person who is formally recognized by the entry in the existing register is likely to sustain a loss. The issue of whether there is "constition to sustain a loss" is not based on the time of registration for the acquisition of a right by a third party (the time of cancellation) but on the basis of the time of the recovery registration.

Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

tin An Attorney Cheong-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

Japan Bank and 1 other

Msan District Court Decision 88Na2698 delivered on January 24, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act refers to a registration that causes the same effect as that of cancellation retroactively at the time of cancellation where all or part of a registration is cancelled illegally. The improper means a case where cancellation registration or other disposal becomes null and void regardless of procedural defect (e.g., cancellation by mistake of a public official). Thus, if a party voluntarily makes a registration of cancellation, a registration of cancellation may not be made if it is likely to incur damages if it becomes a third party’s registration with interest in the registration under Article 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act. The issue of whether there is concern that the above registration would incur damages" should be determined not by the time of registration of cancellation, but by the time of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case, based on the time of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case, the above provisional registration of this case should be determined by the time of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case, which was obtained by the third party’s right to claim the above provisional registration after cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case. Thus, the court below's decision that the above provisional registration of this case was made against the plaintiff.

It is without merit that this appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)