(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018. 11. 8. 선고 2018나40883 판결[소유권말소등기][미간행]
Plaintiff (Attorney Song-sung et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)
Republic of Korea (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorney Park Jong-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
October 16, 2018
Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Da506575 Decided June 7, 2018
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance court is revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation of registration of the preservation of ownership, which was completed on July 21, 1994 with respect to the plaintiff with respect to the registration of the cancellation of the registration of the preservation of ownership, which was completed in accordance with No. 42517, which was completed on July 21, 1994, with respect to the registration of the cancellation of the registration of the preservation of ownership, which was completed on 108 square meters for △△△-dong (number 5 omitted), 108 square meters
1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;
This court's reasoning is the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition or dismissal under Paragraph 2 below. Thus, this court's reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. A part concerning addition or height;
A. The following is added to the second page 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the second page 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: “A. Gyeonggi-do ○○○○○○○-ri (number 1 omitted) of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter “the mother land of this case”)” as “B. The mother land of this case”; (b) the second page 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “B”; and (c) the second page 19 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “B”; and
A. The forests and fields (number 1 omitted) in ○○○○-ri, Goyang-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter referred to as the “instant mother land”) are recorded in the Forest Survey Division on September 30, 1917 (six years in 1917, 1917) as being under the circumstances of Nonparty 2 (Korean Chinese 2 omitted).
(b) The second and third pages of the first instance judgment are as follows.
[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry in Gap evidence 1 through 5, 20 through 22 (including branch numbers for those with a tentative number) and the purport of the whole pleadings]
(c) conduct 3 to 8 of the decision of the first instance is as follows.
A. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion
Pursuant to the circumstances of Nonparty 2 (Korean Chinese name 2 omitted), the mother land of this case was sold to Nonparty 3 (Korean name 3 omitted) on August 3, 1940 (fire 15 years), and Nonparty 3 sold to Nonparty 1 on August 21, 1940 (fire 15 years), and Nonparty 1 sold part of the mother land to Nonparty 4 on July 25, 1967, and the remaining land remaining after selling it to Nonparty 1. The above facts are the land of this case. Since the ownership of this case can be recognized as being indicated as the owner in the old forestry book and land cadastre, and the owner change of land cadastre, and the content that the registration of ownership preservation of this case was made to Nonparty 1, the heir of this case, the heir of this case, who was the heir of this case, was liable to cancel the registration of ownership preservation of the land of this case.
(d) add “2013Da202878” following the 3rd judgment of the first instance court “Pronouncement 11, 2013.”
(e)on 3rd decision of the first instance court, the following shall be added:
Inasmuch as there was no procedure for restoring the destroyed forest register at the time of enforcement of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 2801 of Dec. 31, 1975), the forest register restored by the competent administrative authority in the forest register for administrative convenience cannot be deemed lawful restoration, and therefore, the owner’s entry cannot be the materials proving the ownership of the ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da12216, Jun. 26, 1992, etc.).
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Park Jin-tae (Presiding Judge)