(b) Presumption history of the registration of restoration of loss recorded in an ambiguous manner, the receipt date, receipt number, and grounds for registration;

B. Even if the date of receipt of the former registration, receipt number, and grounds for registration are clearly indicated, barring any special circumstance, it shall be presumed that the registration official lawfully handles the registration by an application for registration accompanied by a document evidencing the right of the former registration, such as a copy of land cadastre, according to the outline of execution of the registration for restoration of destruction, unless

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. As to the plaintiffs' first ground for appeal No. 1

In a case where the whole or part of a registry is physically destroyed due to a disaster such as June 25, or other disaster, the registration for recovery of destruction or loss is conducted for the purpose of restoring the registry extinguished due to the fact. Thus, even before the registry is destroyed (see Supreme Court Decision 4293No629, Nov. 2, 1961). In addition, according to the outline of the registration for recovery of destruction or loss of real estate by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of October 15, 1952, an application for registration for recovery of ownership of real estate shall be accompanied by the certificate of completion of the former registration, but if it is impossible to submit the certificate, the copy or abstract of the register immediately before the destruction or loss shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the land registry, a copy of the house registry, and other public documents verifying other rights. In handling the application for registration of recovery of destruction or loss, even if the date of receipt, receipt number, cause and date of the former registration, etc. are not clearly indicated in the official document verifying the right, it shall be accepted by the court below.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the records, each of the lands in this case was divided and land category changed at 3,166 on March 20, 1957, when the former registration was received, receipt number, and the grounds for registration were unknown in the name of the defendant on March 20, 1957, and one copy of the ownership certificate is attached to an application for registration of recovery of destruction of the above land before subdivision; and the fact that the defendant currently holds the certificate of completion of registration issued to the right holder after the two-gu registry offices completed the procedure for registration of recovery of destruction of the above land before subdivision and stated the purport thereof; in light of this, although the above land before subdivision was owned by the deceased non-party 1, the above land was originally owned by the deceased non-party 1, but the above non-party 1, the father of the plaintiffs, applied for registration of recovery of destruction of the property before subdivision; thus, it is hard to find the plaintiffs' assertion that the transfer registration of ownership was made in the name of the defendant, which is the birth of the above non-party 1.

All arguments are without merit.

2. As to the grounds of appeal No. 2 by the plaintiffs, Kim Jong-ju, Lee Jong-si, respectively.

All of the arguments are erroneous in the judgment of the court below on the premise that the first ground for appeal is well-grounded, and the first ground for appeal is without merit, and therefore the right and wrong of the argument does not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

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

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)