A person registered as an owner in the Land Survey Book shall be presumed to have become final and conclusive in view of the circumstance, barring any counter-proof such as the change in the situation by adjudication, and the presumption of registration of ownership preservation shall be broken if it is found that a person other than the title holder of the registration for preservation has received the relevant land. In order to seek cancellation of registration of ownership preservation in the name of another person who completed the relevant real right as part of the exercise of the right to claim cancellation of registration of ownership preservation based on the ownership of real estate, he/she must assert and prove that he/she has the right to claim cancellation thereof first. If it is not recognized that there is such right, even if registration of ownership preservation in the name of another person should be cancelled, such claim cannot be accepted. Therefore, if the title holder disposes of the land to another person after the circumstance, the title holder or his/her heir has no title to claim cancellation of registration, and such claim cannot be accepted (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da78181, Dec. 24, 2008, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the non-party or his heir transferred the land of this case to another person and lost his ownership because it is reasonable to deem that the non-party or his heir was the owner of the land of this case, although it is acknowledged that the non-party, who is the plaintiff's fleet, entered the land of this case in the name of the assessment title prior to the partition of the land of this case (hereinafter "the land of this case"). The non-party or his heir claimed ownership or claimed compensation prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case; although the land category of the circumstance was "the previous land", the land category of this case 3 through 7 was restored to the previous land and was registered as the road, and the land category was already divided into the previous land and used as the road before the cadastral recovery in light of its location and form, and the disposal details of the surrounding land of this case divided by the circumstance, etc., as well as the surrounding land of this case, the plaintiff cannot be deemed as the owner of the land of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of registration of ownership preservation of the land of this case is without merit.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the fact-finding and judgment of the court below are just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below exceeded the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or did not

In the meantime, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s acquisition by prescription was completed as to the land above, even in determining that the Nonparty or his heir lost ownership by disposing of the land in this case 3 through 7 to a third party. This determination does not affect the conclusion of the judgment of the lower court as to the acquisition by prescription, unless the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as the owner of the land in this case as seen earlier by additional determination. Therefore, the allegation in the grounds of appeal that there was an illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the possession by prescription or incomplete deliberation, etc., cannot be accepted

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 Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)