[소유권보존등기말소][공1980.10.15.(642),13110]
Presumption history of preservation registration
Although the holder of a preservation registration is presumed to be the owner, if it is proved that there is another person in charge of the assessment of the relevant land, such presumption is broken, so the registration is invalid as long as the registered titleholder fails to prove his/her acquisition by succession in detail.
Article 186 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant
[Defendant 1] and 10 others, Counsel for defendant 1-appellee
Seoul High Court Decision 78Na1978 delivered on February 1, 1979
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.
The grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2 are examined.
The legal principle as to the presumption of capacity of preservation registration is that a registered titleholder is presumed to be a one-person, but if it is discovered that there is another person in charge of the assessment of the relevant land, the above presumption is broken. In this case, unless the registered titleholder proves the acquisition by succession specifically, the registration shall be a registration of invalidation without cause, unless he/she proves the acquisition by succession. The court below, under the above purport, confirmed that the land at issue based on the evidence at the time was the land owned by the deceased, where the deceased, the prior owner of the land was under the circumstances of the plaintiffs, and determined that the acquisition by succession is without any evidence to acknowledge the acquisition by succession as claimed by the defendants or the deceased, or that the registration of transfer of ownership made based on the preservation registration under the name of the defendants or the
The above decision of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the facts against the rules of evidence or in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the constructive power of preservation registration.
The third ground of appeal is examined as follows.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the defendants' defense on the prescriptive acquisition on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the land in question was owned by the plaintiffs who succeeded to the land in succession from the above deceased non-party, and that the possessor in the original sale of the defendant's assertion occupied the land in this case for 20 years. Thus, the above measures of the court below are legitimate, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles on the prescriptive acquisition or in the misapprehension of legal reasoning.
In the end, all arguments are not acceptable.
Therefore, this appeal is without merit, 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 on the bench.
Justices Cho Gi-port (Presiding Justice)
Justices Jin- Port (Presiding Justice)