In order to file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of prescription, the title holder of land under the former Land Investigation Decree (Ordinance No. 2, Aug. 13, 1912) shall be the owner at the time of the completion of prescription. Since the title holder of land under the former Land Investigation Decree (Ordinance No. 2, Aug. 13, 1912) originally acquires the relevant land, if the land investigation and additional document were prepared in accordance with the former Land Investigation Ordinance and circumstances were given to the Gun at least, the title holder of the land or his/her heir shall be the land owner (see, e.g.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, each of the lands of this case was entered in the land survey division in the land survey division in 1913, but the name of "F of the plaintiff's clan" was entered in the land survey division in the land survey division prepared in May 1, 1955, as "G and five other or five other persons" in the old land land cadastre column restored in May 1, 1955, and G were the ground for the plaintiff's clan, such as GB, and the plaintiff was also managing several parcels of land located in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, including each of the lands of this case, as a clan, as a clan property and paid taxes including aggregate land tax. The remaining lands except each of the lands of this case were registered in the name of the plaintiff or clan members, and I was externally owned by the title trustee since "F of this case was changed by the title trust administrator from the plaintiff," and it was not possible for the title trustee to request that each of the lands of this case was owned by the title trustee 50 or more.

In light of the above facts, the following circumstances revealed: ① from the fact that a certain person’s name is indicated in the cadastral map, it cannot be presumed immediately to be the owner of the land; but such fact is a flexible material that makes the person to be considered as the owner of the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da40005, Apr. 7, 200). The cadastral level of each land of this case includes the name “F,” and the cadastral level of each land of this case serves as a flexible material that makes the private person to be considered as the owner of each land of this case at least; ② the number and category assigned to the above cadastral level of land was restored to the old land cadastre; ③ there was an entry of “G and five other persons” or “H and five persons in the owner column of the restored land cadastre; ③ It is difficult to view that the land owner of this case’s land was the owner of each land by comprehensively taking into account the circumstances of each land of this case.

Nevertheless, solely on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the Plaintiff may file a claim against the Defendant for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of prescriptive acquisition. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on unregistered real estate, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Cho Jong-hee

Chief Justice Park Sang-ok