[소유권이전등기말소][공1981.4.15.(654),13723]
Land ownership without obtaining permission for acquisition of rights within the period stipulated in Article 2 of the Addenda to the Foreigner's Land Act;
Even if a foreigner, etc. owner did not obtain permission for acquisition of rights from the authorities within the period stipulated in paragraph (2) of the Addenda to the Foreigner's Land Law, he/she holds ownership until he/she loses his/her rights by auction under the Enforcement Decree
Article 5 of the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act
Supreme Court Decision 70Da860,861 Delivered on December 22, 1970
Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Yong-hwan, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 79Na2596 delivered on May 8, 1980
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
On the first ground for appeal
The court below determined that the defendant's assertion that the non-party 1 purchased the forest land of this case on March 1, 1952 by the non-party 2, who was the deceased non-party 3 as his agent, on the ground that it is recognized that the non-party 1 had already died on August 7, 1947, which was prior to the above sale date of the defendant's head office, and that the non-party 2, who was the deceased's father, occupied the forest land of this case from March 1, 1952 to the non-party 3, and that the non-party 2, who was the defendant's father, purchased the forest of this case on March 1, 1952, cannot believe the evidence of the court below's decision consistent with the defendant's assertion on the above purchase, and rejected the defendant's assertion that the non-party 1, who was the defendant's father, has occupied the forest of this case on March 1, 1952.
In light of the above, the court below's fact-finding, including the above facts, can be accepted in reviewing the evidence at the time of the decision of the court below, and it cannot be concluded that there is an illegality in violation of the rules of evidence or in the incomplete hearing.
(In this case, it cannot be viewed that the above non-party 1 recognized the status relationship on August 7, 1947 and other plaintiff's property inheritance by the statement of No. 1 and No. 2 of the argument in this case. It is not illegal because the above non-party 1 recognized the status relationship on the plaintiff's property inheritance. The argument is groundless.
With respect to the second ground:
Although a foreigner, etc.'s land owner did not obtain permission from the authorities, the ownership of the land should be lost as a matter of course after the lapse of one year period for transferring the right, and only after the auction under the procedure under the Enforcement Decree of the Foreigner's Land Acquisition Act (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da860,861, Dec. 22, 1970). However, the decision of the court below is justified in holding that the plaintiff, the heir of the above deceased non-party 1, who acquired ownership of the forest land in this case in July 24, 1931, did not obtain permission from the authorities within one year from the date of enforcement of the Act, and even if the plaintiff did not obtain permission from the authorities within one year from the date of enforcement of the Act, the ownership of the land shall not be lost as a matter of course, and it shall be deemed that the plaintiff has no legal principles as to the ownership of the forest land in this case, as it did not contain any records that the plaintiff lost the ownership of the forest land in this case.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Park Tae-hee (Presiding Justice)