The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As of Aug. 9, 1945, the land of this case was reverted to the defendant under the military administration Act No. 33 as of Aug. 9, 1945, and the first agreement between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America as to financial and property, and was determined to cancel the reversion due to a simplified appeal procedure pursuant to Article 120 of the excessive government law, and thus, the ownership cannot be acquired from the deceased door, and therefore, the plaintiff cannot acquire the ownership. Therefore, there is no trace of the defendant's argument that the judgment of the court below cannot be used to attack this fact. The other reasons for the argument are that all of the plaintiff's assertion are the ownership of the land of this case filed against the defendant in the lawsuit of confirming the ownership of the land of this case by the Seoul High Court (Supreme Court Decision 81Na3506 delivered on Aug. 27, 1982) which confirmed that the ownership of the above Kim bill was owned by the defendant. Thus, the above argument in this case can not be allowed.

2. According to the court below's determination, the defendant entered into a contract with the person who has no authority to dispose of the above documents and entered into such contract against the registered titleholder, such as the deceased and the deceased Kim Jong-il, and thus, the reason is null and void. The registered titleholder's registration of transfer of ownership, such as Kim Jong-il, was filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of ownership transfer registration and a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant (Seoul High Court Decision 74Na65 delivered on May 13, 1975), but the above Kim Jong-il was issued a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the defendant on the ground that new evidence that the above contract was entered into by the person with authority to dispose of the above land was found. The defendant did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the ownership transfer registration of the above land and the judgment in favor of the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 81Na3506 delivered on August 27, 1982). The defendant ordered cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership by the above final and conclusive judgment and the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of ownership registration itself.

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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)