소유권말소등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for a supplementary or additional determination as to the defendant’s argument in the trial of the court of first instance under paragraph (2). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence
2. Parts to be determined by supplement or addition;
A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff was negligent in acquiring possession of the instant land by acquiring the instant land from J without properly verifying the fact, even though H, the Plaintiff’s father, was written as the owner in the forest land register, and the Defendant did not confirm it.
According to Article 5(1) of the former Special Act, if a project implementer intends to acquire or use land, etc. for the purpose of a public project, etc., he/she shall pay compensation to the legitimate right holder confirmed by the head of the relevant Gu, the head of the relevant Si, or the head of the Eup/Myeon, and Article 3(5) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that a person issued a written confirmation issued by the head of the Gu, the head of the relevant Si, or the head of the Eup/Myeon shall be deemed a legitimate right holder under Article 5(1) of the Special Act, and (2) the defendant is aware that theJ issued the written confirmation of ownership according to the procedures prescribed in the Special Act on the Land of this case, the ownership of which is not registered for the preservation of ownership, and (3) the defendant's acquisition of the ownership of the land from J by consultation with the competent right holder is a legitimate result of business process under the Special Act.