(a) The validity of the purchase of land at the time of the Gu residents' law but fails to register the ownership transfer within six years from the enforcement date of the current Civil Act;

B. Whether the State can exercise its rights against a third party by subrogation of the State for the preservation of monetary claims against the State (negative)

A. Even if a parcel of land was purchased at the time of the Residents' Act and the ownership was acquired, if the ownership is not registered within six years from the date of the enforcement of the current Civil Act (amended by January 1, 1960) to December 31, 1965, the ownership shall be lost and only the right to claim for the transfer of ownership shall be extinguished upon the lapse of ten years from January 1, 1966.

B. Even if the plaintiff has the right to claim compensation against the State, in order to exercise the right to claim the cancellation registration against the defendants of the state on behalf of the State, it shall be limited to the case where the state is insolvent to the extent that it is impossible to realize and satisfy the plaintiff's right to claim the cancellation registration, and it is necessary to prevent the decrease in the state's general liability property due to neglecting the state's exercise of the right to claim the cancellation registration. However, since the State cannot present its insolvency, it cannot exercise its right to claim the cancellation registration against the defendants of the State on behalf of the State in subrogation of the State

Article 404 of the Civil Code, Article 10 of the Addenda to the Civil Code

Supreme Court Decision 63Da122 delivered on April 25, 1963 (Article 404(25)70 of the Civil Act), Article 404(2)700 of the Civil Act, Article 7362 house 11 ① 275 of the Civil Act) 69Da835 delivered on July 29, 1969 (Article 404(51)704 of the Civil Act, Article 404(51)704 of the Civil Act, Article 637 house 17

Korea Electric Power Corporation

Habag and 21 others

Chuncheon District Court of the first instance (84dan264 delivered on July 2, 200)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in entirety.

The plaintiff's additional claims in the trial are all dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

A. The primary claim and the preliminary claim (the preliminary claim are added at the trial) of the Plaintiff.

(1) Defendant Haba, Haba, Haba, Haba, Habba, Habba, Habba, Haba, Haba, Habba, Habba, Haba, Haba, Haba, Haba, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 items of real estate in attached Table 1, 2, 7, 3, 4, 5, 16, 17, 198, 197, 3, 198, 3, 16, 197, 308, 197, 3, 197, 198.

(2) As to the real estate stated in attached Table 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, and 33 of the same registry, the registration of transfer of ownership made on the ground of sale on September 15, 1980 as of the real estate stated in attached Table 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 200, 23, 24, 24, 25, 27, 30, 31, 32, and 9, the registration of transfer of ownership made on the ground of sale on the real estate stated in the attached Table 1,

(3) On June 24, 1981, the registration procedure for cancellation of the transfer of ownership completed on the ground of sale at June 18 of the same year by the same registry office No. 6651, with respect to real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 of the attached sheet;

(4) The registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration made on the ground of sale on November 10 of the same year by the same registry office No. 11882 of the receipt on November 16, 1979 with respect to real estate listed in the Schedule 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 of the attached Table 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the same year;

(5) On July 5, 1983, the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of the establishment of a mortgage, which was completed on the ground of a mortgage agreement signed on July 4, 1983 with respect to the real estate recorded in the attached list 9,12, and 13 on July 5, 1983 by the same registry office, 7392, which was received on July 5, 1983, as follows: (a) the registration procedure for the establishment of a mortgage, which was completed on the ground of a mortgage agreement signed on July 4, 1988; (b) the list 15,16, and 30, which was received on July 5, 1983 by the same registry office, as the registration procedure for the establishment of a mortgage, which was completed on the ground of a mortgage agreement signed on July 4, 1983, which was set forth in the list 9,900,000 won

(6) The procedure for the cancellation registration of the registration of the preservation of ownership, which was made on July 26, 1971 by the same registry office with respect to the real property listed in the [Attachment 28,29] list 28,29;

(7) The procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership, which was made on January 18, 1984 by the same registry office with respect to the real estate listed in the attached Table 30, 31, 32, 33, and 33, on January 21, 1984, on the ground that it was sold on January 18, 198;

(8) As to the real estate listed in the attached Table 34, the defendant Kim Jong-sik shall register cancellation of the ownership transfer registration made on September 22, 1978 by the same registry office No. 4068 on September 22, 1978 on the ground of sale on September 21, 1978

(9) With respect to the real estate listed in the attached list 35,36, the defendant Kang Jae-in shall implement each procedure for registration of cancellation for the registration of preservation of ownership, which was completed by the same registry office No. 2935 on March 14, 1983 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list 35,36, and each procedure for registration of cancellation for the registration of preservation of ownership, which was completed by the same registry office No. 12

B. It is confirmed that the real estate recorded in the attached list is owned by the Plaintiff (in addition, in the trial).

C. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants in both the first and second instances.

1. The plaintiff's primary cause of claim is that the plaintiff (former Han River Co., Ltd.) purchased the above land from 22 persons, such as Han River Co., Ltd. for the purpose of securing the water reservoir in 1941 and 1942. The plaintiff purchased the above land from 1941 and 1942, and the non-party 1's registration of ownership transfer was destroyed due to 6.25 column of the above land, and the non-party 1's name was removed from 9.3.4, July 1971, the defendant Jong Jong-chul had no legal effect for the above 19.4, each of the above land was purchased from 194 and the above 19.1's new registration of ownership transfer, each of which was entered in the 19.1's new registration of the above land was entered in the order of 1's new registration of ownership, and each of the above land was entered in the 1's new registration of ownership.

2. Next, as seen above, the plaintiff is a preliminary cause of claim and even if each of the above lands owned by the plaintiff was nationalized into the Hongcheon River basin as of August 18, 1948, the plaintiff will have a claim for compensation for losses against the State on the same day. Since the registration of ownership transfer or establishment registration of a neighboring mortgage is a registration invalidation which has been illegally made with respect to each of the above lands owned by the State, such as the entries in the defendants' names, and the preservation of the purport of the claim and the registration of ownership transfer or establishment of a neighboring mortgage, all of the registrations are invalid. Thus, the plaintiff asserts that the State in subrogation of the state in order to preserve the above claim for compensation against the defendants in subrogation of the State, even if the above lands were incorporated into a river and had a claim for cancellation registration against the defendants by subrogation of the State, first of all, in order to exercise the claim for compensation against the defendants by subrogation of the state, the state's exercise of the above claim for compensation should not be justified in all of the above claims against the defendants.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and all of the conjunctive claims and ownership confirmation claims added in the trial are dismissed, and all of the remaining claims are dismissed. The judgment below is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and all of the appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Han-young (Presiding Judge)