[1] The land list (1) is owned by Japan at the time of August 9, 1945, and the above list (2) land was owned by the plaintiff as a domestic corporation. The administrative authority of the non-party country knew that all of the above land was reverted to the private teaching institute, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of belonging to the right on April 13, 1960, but the court below revoked the above disposition of non-party 1 on the ground that the above disposition of non-party 1 was revoked on the ground that the non-party 1 and the above list (8) was not owned by the plaintiff and the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were not owned by the above list (the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 were the non-party 6's new land ownership transfer registration was revoked on the premise that the above disposition of non-party 1 was revoked on the premise that the ownership transfer registration was cancelled on the non-party 2's own land.

However, if the disposition of cancellation of the disposition of cancellation of the disposition of non-performance of the property belonging to Japan, which was the above Japan's ownership, was the property belonging to it, and the ownership acquired by the disposition of non-performance of the above land remains in existence without loss from the original date. Thus, it cannot be concluded that the above defendant cannot exercise his ownership against the plaintiff just on the ground that the registration of the defendant's name cancelled was not restored (if the above disposition of cancellation was lawfully cancelled, it can be said that the above registration of cancellation was returned to the registration of the original disposition of cancellation after the original disposition of cancellation. The above disposition of non-performance of the property belonging to Japan is an administrative disposition, but its substance can be viewed as the sale of the property, and as such, if the above disposition of non-performance of the property remains in existence, it cannot be viewed that the registration of change in real rights cannot be effected without the cancellation of the ownership of the plaintiff's right, and the above decision of the court below cannot be viewed as the cancellation of the above third party's ownership.

On the other hand, according to the judgment of the court below, there was a judgment revoking the above disposition prior to the disposition of the administrative agency's cancellation of the above disposition, but if the above judgment became final and conclusive, the above disposition was cancelled as the validity of the above judgment prior to the cancellation by the administrative agency's cancellation, so even if the administrative agency cancelled the above disposition thereafter, the above disposition of cancellation is merely a ground to confirm the fact that it was cancelled by the judgment, and therefore, even if the disposition of cancellation was cancelled again, it is not a restoration of the above disposition against the administrative agency's private teaching institute, which was revoked by the judgment, and therefore, it is not reasonable to say that the above disposition of this case with the plaintiff and the non-party can be viewed as a restoration by the legitimate right holder. However, since the above facts did not become final and conclusive by the court below, it is a separate issue (refer to the records, which was confirmed by the judgment that the above disposition of non-party was invalid by the judgment (refer to the records No. 3555 to No. 377 of June 15, 195). 195).

Therefore, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim, and therefore, it is reasonable to discuss the purport of pointing this out in the end, because there is a defect that is not specified in its reasoning. Thus, the court below reversed the original judgment and remanded the case to the Seoul High Court in accordance with Articles 400 and 406 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges

Justices Jeong Tae-won (Presiding Justice)