According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below stated, based on its employment evidence, that the owner of the land of this case, which was unregistered on the land cadastre restored on May 10, 1962, was "○○ Dong" rather than "○○ Dong", and stated, "○○ Dong" as "○○ Dong" was very similar to the Plaintiff's Chinese characters, "○○ Dong" as "○○ Dong", "the resident registration number of the owner listed on the above land cadastre coincides with the Plaintiff's resident registration number, and "○○ Dong" was cultivated by the Plaintiff's neighboring land owner who resided in 27 Giju City, which is adjacent to the land of this case from December 5, 1972 to the present date, and entered in the farmland ledger that the Plaintiff directly cultivated the land of this case as "○○ Dong" and "No. 3643,46,37,000,000, which is also the Plaintiff's resident registration number of 20,000 won and 46,00.

The above decision of the court below cannot be accepted for the following reasons.

A person who is registered in the Land Survey Division or the Forest Survey Division shall be presumed to be the owner of the land and the circumstance thereof shall be presumed to have become final and conclusive unless there is any counter-proof such as the change in the situation by the adjudication. A person who is assessed on the land is the original acquisition of the land (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Da13413, Apr. 26, 1991; 95Da16493, Aug. 22, 1995; 98Da5708, Jul. 10, 1998; 98Da34485, Sept. 3, 1999, etc.) and even if the name is indicated in the former Land Survey column restored before the amendment of the Cadastral Act, the presumption of right cannot be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da16493, Aug. 22, 199; 9Da3485, Jul. 10, 1998>

According to the above legal principles, so long as there is a separate title holder of the land of this case, the land of this case shall be deemed to be owned by the “non-party” or his heir, who is the title holder of the situation, and the mere fact that the land of this case was registered on the land cadastre in the Plaintiff’s name as to the land of this case cannot be deemed to have acquired the ownership of the land of this case, notwithstanding the fact that the Plaintiff acquired the ownership of the land of this case, the lower court did not have any examination as to the “non-party” or his heir’s whereabouts and birth or death. Thus, it is deemed that the lower court failed to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the acquisition of unregistered land ownership.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)