Presumption of Restoration Registration

In case where the registration of transfer of ownership is made by the recovery registration procedure after the destruction of the registry, such registration is presumed to have been legally accepted and processed by the registration officer, unless there are any special circumstances, and thus the registration titleholder is presumed to have acquired the ownership due to the cause of registration.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 79 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 80Da3286 Delivered on November 24, 1981

Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and 5 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant Kim Yang-nam

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na949 delivered on January 28, 1981

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

With respect to No. 1:

Where a registration of transfer of ownership has been made on the real estate register, the registrant shall be presumed to have acquired the ownership by the reason for registration. On the other hand, the recovery registration is presumed to have been duly accepted and processed by the registry official unless there are any special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da1485, Nov. 28, 1978; Supreme Court Decision 78Da1238, Dec. 26, 1978; 79Da1550, Nov. 13, 1979; 80Da1975, Oct. 14, 1980; 80Da3286, Nov. 24, 1981). Thus, the above legal principles are not different in cases where the transfer of ownership was made by the recovery registration procedure after the registration of transfer of ownership was destroyed.

According to the facts duly established by the court below, since the registration passed through the non-party 1's future transit of the real estate is a transfer of ownership by the procedure of recovery after the registration was destroyed or lost, the judgment below is justified in holding that there is a presumption of such registration in the same purport, and there is no misapprehension of the legal principle as to the presumption of ownership transfer registration. In addition, since the Supreme Court's precedents where the theory of lawsuit is based on the violation of the precedents are not about the presumption of ownership transfer registration, but about the presumption of ownership transfer registration, it cannot be a proper precedent in this case, there is no argument that the judgment of the court below

With respect to the second ground:

According to the court below's evidence, the court below's determination that non-party 1 purchased land from non-party 2 was the land in the dispute of this case can be reviewed in light of the records, and it cannot be viewed that there was a violation of the rules of evidence, a violation of the reasoning or an incomplete reasoning, or an incomplete reasoning, as in the process of the preparation of evidence and the fact-finding.

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 Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice) Gangwon-young Kim Young-ju