2. The remainder of the appeal by the defendant Gwangju District and the appeal by the defendant Sung-nam City are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the total costs incurred between the plaintiff and the defendant Gwangju-gun are divided into two minutes, and one shall be the same defendant, the remaining one shall be the plaintiff, and the costs incurred by the appeal between the defendant and the defendant Nam-si shall be the same defendant.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The Plaintiff asserts that the land listed in the attached list is the Plaintiff’s ownership, and the Defendants completed the registration in the future without any title, and thus seeking cancellation of the registration. However, as seen above, insofar as the registration of ownership transfer was turned out in the name of the Plaintiff’s decedent, the presumption power of ownership preservation that was completed in the future of the Defendant Gwangju-gun cannot be deemed to have been broken and the above land was owned by the Defendant Gwangju-gun, unless it was revealed that the registration was valid in accordance with this real relation for any other reason, the registration of ownership preservation that was completed in the future of the Defendant Gwangju-gun shall be presumed to have been null and void without any title. The land listed in the attached list shall be presumed to have been owned by the Plaintiff, the heir of the deceased Kim Jae-gun, the title owner of the land listed in the attached list, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant Gwangju-gun-gun, the above registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Defendant Gwangju-gun, the title owner of which was completed and the registration of ownership transfer that was completed thereafter, shall not be null and void unless any special reason exists.

However, as seen above, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant Gwangju-gun on the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 among the above registration of the plaintiff's assertion as to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2, as to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2, as long as it is evident that the registration form was closed, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant Gwangju-gun on the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 was invalidated as of 801-2, 192, Sungnam-dong, Sungnam-dong, the final lot number of the previous land before replotting was divided into 6-1, 78Da1485, Nov. 18, 1978, and as to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant Gwangju-gun-gun as to the land listed in the previous sheet No. 2, the registration of preservation of ownership does not have the interest in litigation against its cancellation (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da1485, Nov. 18, 19, 2).

As to this, the Defendants first asserted that even if Defendant Gwangju-gun purchased approximately 801 to 235 square meters on behalf of the mid-gu Busan-gun branch prior to the subdivision of the land listed in the separate sheet or the substitution of land, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant Sungnam-si, which was made on the basis of the above registration and the aforesaid registration, is valid registration consistent with the substantive relationship. However, the testimony of Nonparty 1 and 2 of the lower court corresponding thereto is insufficient to recognize the above facts, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Secondly, the defendants asserted that since the registration of preservation of ownership was made on December 29, 1964 in the name of the defendant Gwangju-gun on the land listed in the attached list, the defendant Sung-si occupied it in good faith and without negligence for not less than 10 years, and thus, he acquired it by prescription. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it except for the portion of the above witness's testimony that the defendant Gwangju-gun started possession of the above land in good faith and without negligence, and even if the defendant Gwangju-gun started possession of the above land from the time when the preservation registration of ownership was made in its name, as seen above, even if it is evident that the defendant Gwangju-gun registered the preservation of the above land in its name without title, it cannot be deemed that there was negligence of possession, and since the period after the registration was made in its name, the defendant Sung-nam-gun-gun did not meet the requirements for the remaining acquisition of the above land, the defendant's assertion that the remaining part of the defendant's acquisition of prescription is unnecessary.

Therefore, among the plaintiff's claims, the part of the claim for cancellation of the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant Gwangju-gun as to the land listed in the attached list No. 2 shall be dismissed, and the part of the claim for cancellation of the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant Gwangju-gun as to the land listed in the attached list No. 1 and all of the land listed in the attached list No. 2 shall be accepted as it is reasonable. Since the original judgment which differs from this conclusion is unfair, part of the appeal by the defendant Gwangju-gun shall be accepted, and the part concerning the land listed in the attached list No. 2 as to the defendant Gwangju-gun as to the land listed in the attached list No. 2 shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim concerning this shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and the remaining appeal by the defendant Gwangju-gun-gun and the appeal by the defendant Sung-nam-si shall

Judges Jeon Byung-hun (Presiding Judge)