경정등기말소 및 부당이득반환청구등
The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The Plaintiff asserted that, as the heir of the deceased G, who was the nominal owner of the instant land, the registration of correction of ownership transfer registration was null and void in the name of the owner of the instant land, Defendant B, etc., and that the registration of correction of ownership transfer registration was completed in the future H, who was the decedent of the instant land. In accordance with the registration of correction, the Plaintiff filed a claim for cancellation
If the Plaintiff’s ownership is not recognized, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case cannot be accepted, regardless of whether the registration of correction under the name of the deceased H was effective, since the Plaintiff’s claim of this case cannot be accepted, first of all, the propriety of the judgment of the lower court is examined.
2.(a)
Since the registration of transfer filed under the name of the deceased is deemed to be a registration invalidation of cause, there is no room to acknowledge the presumption power of registration. Therefore, the person who asserts the validity of the registration is liable to prove that the registration conforms
(See Supreme Court Decisions 83Meu597 Decided August 23, 1983, and 2017Da360, and 377 Decided December 22, 2017, etc.). The lower court recognized the fact that the instant transfer registration was made on February 11, 1951, the date when the deceased G G, the nominal owner of the instant ownership, and on June 8, 1952, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to recognize the fact that the deceased G’s heir completed the instant transfer registration in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, and determined that the instant transfer registration itself cannot be recognized as the presumption of registration.
The above determination by the court below is justifiable in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.
B. However, on the grounds delineated below, the lower court determined that the instant registration of ownership transfer conforms to the substantive relationship is valid due to extenuating circumstances.
Real estate registration is presumed to have been completed by legitimate grounds for registration in itself, which is formally existing.