[1] Whether the authority which performed the construction works can be presumed to have purchased and paid the land below the ground where the construction works were conducted through the second Emergency Expansion Facilities Project of the Department of Shipbuilding General Reading (the second Emergency Expansion Facilities Project) (affirmative)

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below rejecting the legality of the preservation registration, on the ground that there is room for legitimate registration that the registration of preservation of ownership of the state's name on the site of the relevant facility is consistent with the substantive relations, since the small river site construction was conducted by the second projects to expand the sources of emergency water supply (the second projects to expand the sources of emergency water supply), in light of the construction entity and the timing of construction of the small river site

[1] Since the projects for the expansion of the second emergency water supply source (the second emergency water supply source project) implemented by the Joseon General in around 1943, the projects are projects for the installation of small river sites implemented nationwide by the Joseon General in order to purchase the land under its upper condition and subsidize the necessary expenses. Thus, if the small river site construction was conducted under the supervision of the entire Germany as part of the above projects, it is in accordance with the empirical and logical rules to presume that the authority that performed the construction of small river sites purchased the land under its upper condition and paid the price thereof.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below that rejected the legality of the preservation registration, on the ground that there is room for legitimate registration that the registration of preservation of ownership of the state's name on the site of the relevant facility is consistent with the substantive relations, since the small river site construction was conducted by the second projects to expand the sources of emergency water supply (the second projects to expand the sources of emergency water supply), in light of the construction entity and the timing of construction of the small river site

[1] Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 202 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 79Da2269 delivered on September 24, 1980 (Gong1980, 1322) Supreme Court Decision 93Da42696 delivered on February 10, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1279) Supreme Court Decision 97Da40032 delivered on December 12, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 283)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee Yong-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2005Na94906 decided July 4, 2006

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Since the 2nd Emergency Expansion Facilities Project implemented by the Joseon General Government in around 1943 (the second Emergency Expansion Facilities Project) is a small field construction project implemented nationwide by the Joseon General Government in order to purchase the land under its upper condition and subsidize the expenses. Thus, if the small field construction was conducted under the supervision of the 2nd Government as part of the above project, unless there are special circumstances, it is in accordance with the empirical and logical rules that the authority that performed the installing the small field construction is presumed to have purchased the land under its upper condition and paid the price thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 62Da577, Nov. 1, 1962; 79Da2269, Sept. 24, 1980).

The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was legitimate registration in accordance with the real relation, on the ground that the defendant's assertion that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was made in accordance with the real relation, and that the land was used as the site of the reservoir in the case of the land of this case and that the land was used as the site of the reservoir in 1945 and the construction of the building was promoted as part of the plan for the expansion of the Emergency Water Sources in accordance with the Japanese colonial system around 1945. The court below rejected the defendant's above assertion on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge that the construction of the Gadododoggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

However, such judgment of the court below is hard to accept.

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below and records, it is revealed that the construction of the Dongdogggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggg

As such, the court below should have judged that the above reservoir was constructed as part of the emergency water source expansion project plan in a case where there is no particular evidence on the following circumstances by conducting a more detailed deliberation on the circumstances in which the winter site was constructed.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion easily on the ground that there is no evidence to support that the construction of the East-gu area was implemented as part of the project for the expansion of the sources of emergency water supply, and it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)