Whether there is a benefit in a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the above registration in the event that the registration of transfer of ownership recorded in the closed register has not been completed with the pre-announcement registration under Article 113 of the Enforcement Rule of the Registration of Real Estate Act (negative)

The register for which the registration of ownership transfer has been made on the land of this case was already closed by the established rules of the Supreme Court No. 218 of Sep. 24, 1984. Since the registration was not completed by prior notification or prior notification under Article 113 of the Enforcement Rule of the Registration of Real Estate Act, the plaintiff has no interest in the lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the registration.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 26 and 75 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 113 of the Enforcement Rule of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da1949 delivered on January 15, 1980 (Gong1980, 12543) 80Da1389 delivered on December 9, 1980 (Gong1981, 13508) decided November 10, 1987 (Gong1988,82)

Maximum displayed

Attorney Kim In-hwan, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Suwon District Court Decision 89Na1954 delivered on October 17, 1989

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, with regard to the land in this case where the ownership transfer registration under the name of the non-party 5262, which was received on November 26, 1954 on the ground of sale and purchase on February 27, 194, was completed, the court below held that the above registration of ownership transfer was again made under the name of the non-party 6926 of the above registry office on October 19, 1959, and the above registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of the above registry office No. 6933 of October 19, 1959, and the ownership transfer registration under the name of the above registry office No. 20503 of Sep. 4, 1963 was made successively, and that the plaintiff purchased the land in this case from the non-party 4,000,000 won, and paid the remainder of the registration of ownership transfer to the above non-party 1 in the name of the above registry office to the same person.

However, according to the records and records of the register of the plaintiff's submission (the evidence Nos. 2-2 and No. 1-1 of this case), the register No. 23401 of this case was already closed pursuant to Article 218 of the Rules of the Supreme Court on Sep. 24, 1984 (the register that has been registered in the name of the defendant is also closed on Nov. 8, 1989). With respect to the registration, it can be known that prior notice registration under Article 113 of the Enforcement Decree of the Registration of Real Estate Act or the transfer registration has not been completed. If the registration is closed, the plaintiff has no interest in seeking the cancellation of the registration.

The court below did not examine this issue and did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to this point. Thus, the issue of this point is with merit.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the case to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon In-tae (Presiding Justice)