Whether the legal presumption of a new registration of restitution of loss has been lawful due to uncertainty of the date of receipt of the previous registration and the number column (affirmative)

If the recovery registration by the reduction room is entered in the register, it is reasonable to presume that it has been legally accepted and processed by the registration officer, barring any particular circumstance, and the fact that the date of receipt and the number column of the previous registration are entered in the “not known” cannot be deemed as a defect in the recovery registration procedure.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 79 and 80 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Da3286 Decided November 24, 1981 (Gong1982,66)

Attorney Hong Jong-su et al., Counsel for the defendant

Hongsung District Court Decision 200Na1548 decided May 1, 200

Korea

Chuncheon District Court Decision 89Na637 delivered on May 11, 1990

The part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant Red machine shall be reversed, and that part of the case shall be remanded to Chuncheon District Court Panel Division.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the dismissed appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

In light of the records, the reasoning of the judgment below is justified, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and it does not change because the plaintiff holds Gap evidence 5 (certificate of sale) in this case.

In addition, if the facts are the same, the judgment of the court below that the registration of transfer of ownership due to the recovery of each land listed in the annexed list 2,3, and 4 of the judgment below, which was completed in the name of the non-party Red Cancer on June 11, 1956, is presumed to be a registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, as it is completed in accordance with lawful procedures. Even if the above land was purchased from the non-party Kim Jong-sung on April 1, 1934 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership, the judgment of the court below is just and it is not sufficient to reverse the presumption power of transfer of ownership due to the recovery of the above name, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the presumption power of the restoration registration.

It is reasonable to presume that the date of receipt or receipt number of the former registration is unclear in the registration of recovery, and it is not accompanied by the certificate of completion of registration to be attached to the application for recovery registration or the certificate of completion of registration to be attached to the register before destruction or damage, or the official document certifying rights, such as a copy or abstract of the register, the land, or a copy of the house register, etc. If the registration of recovery was entered in the register due to destruction or damage, it is reasonable to presume that the former registration was legally accepted and processed by the registrar, barring any special circumstances. The receipt date and receipt number of the former registration can only be presumed to have been unclear due to the malfunction of the part, even if the certificate of completion of the former registration or the copy of the register is attached to the original registration or the copy of the register, and it cannot be deemed that there is a defect in the procedure of recovery registration (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da3286, Nov. 24, 1981).

The Supreme Court Decision 4293Da629 delivered on November 2, 1961 decided on November 2, 1961 is not appropriate in this case, and the Supreme Court Decision 79Da467 delivered on November 27, 1979 (the decision stated in the appellate brief as 46 seems to be a clerical error) was changed by the above 80Da3286 delivered on November 27, 197. The decision 79Da46 delivered on March 13, 1979 is not appropriate in this case.

In addition, the reasoning of the court below's dismissal of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant's Republic of Korea as to the land stated in the attached list No. 1 of the judgment below cannot be viewed as a contradiction.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant Red machine attorney.

According to the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the ownership transfer registration as to the plaintiff's assertion that the prescription period has been completed as to the plaintiff's ownership acquisition due to the expiration of 20 years since the plaintiff had already been acquired by inheritance of the non-party Hong Pung, and since the plaintiff can be recognized that the ownership was transferred to the non-party Hong Pung, on April 1, 1934, the land before replotting in the attached list No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the above land) of the judgment of the court below was acquired by donation from the above Hong Pung, on the ground that the above Hong Pung, was not recognized as the donation of the plaintiff's assertion that the ownership was acquired by donation from the above Hong Pung Pung, which was the Cho Pung Pung, the first part of the defendant Hong Pung Pung, the first part of the above Hong Pung Pung Pung, which was the first part of the above Hong Pung Pung, and since it was not completed due to the expiration of the prescription period.

However, according to the records, Defendant Red Ginseng stated in the first instance court that it would complete the registration of ownership transfer due to the restoration of the above red rock name except for the above land at issue (the preparatory document dated November 30, 198), but there was no further statement as to how to register the above land thereafter. The court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the premise that, as for the land in this case as seen in the attached list 2, 3, and 4 of the court below’s judgment among the land in this case, Nonparty Red Cancer had been registered under its name on June 11, 1956 and owned and managed for not less than 10 years, and the above land (the land No. 1 of the same list) has been owned and managed for not less than 20 years, since each of the above registrations with the completion of acquisition by prescription is valid in accordance with the substantive relationship, and the above land is also a legitimate right holder due to the above fact-finding without the completion of the registration of ownership transfer due to the reason in light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion as above.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of law, and since this affects the judgment, it is reasonable to point this out.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against Defendant Red machine is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's 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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)