[소유권보존등기말소청구사건][고집1973민(1),331]
Whether the ownership of land is lost due to the destruction of the land register;
The owner of the land at the time of loss of the registration shall not naturally lose his ownership even if the registration is lost, even if the registration is lost.
Article 186 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Defendant 1 and one other
Seoul Central District Court (72 Gohap363) in the first instance trial
The defendants' appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.
As to the real estate recorded in the attached list, Defendant 1 shall implement the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on the same day as that of the Seoul District Court Leecheon District Court No. 3380, Feb. 19, 1965; Defendant 2 shall implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of sale on the real estate recorded in the attached list No. 1185, Feb. 18, 1970; and the procedure for each cancellation of registration.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.
The original judgment shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The land listed in the attached list was originally divided in Echeon-gun, Leecheon-gun, Leecheon-gun, Lee Jong-gun (hereinafter omitted). As to this, the registration of preservation of ownership was made on September 22, 1964 by Defendant 1, Defendant 1, and Defendant 1, the Seoul Civil District Court Lee Dong-cheon District Court received on September 22, 1964, and again, on February 29, 1965, it was divided into the land listed in Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the attached list as of July 30, 1969, and on the real estate listed in No. 1 of the attached list as of February 18, 1970, and there is no dispute between the parties that the ownership transfer registration, such as the purport of the claim, has been made in the future.
However, without dispute over the establishment of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3 (No. 4), 5 (No. 6 (No. 1), 2 (No. 6-1), and 3 (No. 3 (Delegation), the testimony of the court below witness No. 2, and 3 (No. 4) and the fact inquiry by the court of original judgment, and the whole purport of the parties' arguments, the above (number omitted) were owned by the deceased non-party No. 4, the father of the court of original judgment. The plaintiff purchased this from the deceased non-party No. 4 on March 30, 1940 and completed the ownership transfer registration in the future, it was recognized that the register and the forestry register for the above land were small, and that the owner was no only the owner of the above land in the Gyeonggi-gun Forest Office, and that there was no other evidence to prove that the non-party No. 2 had been the owner of the above land in the forest register no. 96) on the ground that it had been entered in the forest register for its own, and no other evidence.
In light of the above facts, since the owner of the above land at the time of the loss of the above registration is the plaintiff, even if the registration is destroyed, the ownership should be lost as a matter of course even if the registration is destroyed, so the registration of ownership preservation made by the non-party 1 with respect to the same land thereafter is an invalid registration without any ground in this case where there is no evidence of assertion as to the raw milk so acquired, and each of the above registrations made in the name of the defendants should be cancelled as the cause of the invalidity.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of each of the above registrations against the defendant et al. is justified, and the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as without merit, and the costs of appeal are to be borne by the defendants as the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.
[Attachment List omitted]
Judges Jeon Soo-dae (Presiding Judge)