• The Journal of the Korea Contents Association
• /
• v.15 no.9
• /
• pp.126-133
• /
• 2015

According to the traditional precedent, if a beneficiary who completed a provisional registration as a result of reservation of trade which is a fraudulent act, then assigned the right acquired by the provisional registration to the third party who has no information of the process, and let the third party complete an additional registration transfer the provisional registration, and if the third party completed the main registration on the foundation of the provisional registration, the beneficiary cannot be the other party of the litigation requesting for the cancellation of registration of the provisional registration. As the result, an apprehension that the duty to recovery of the beneficiary could easily be acquitted of a charge has existed. But, it is considered as desirable that the judicial decision judged that the court recognized the qualification of the defendant as appropriate at this case, with a different view from the precedent, and then the defendant can file the litigation against the beneficiary, requesting for cancellation of the reservation of trade which is a fraudulent act.