Plaintiff (Law Firm Handeok, Attorneys Ansan-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea (Law Firm, Attorney O Chang-ok, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

August 16, 2012

1. The defendant will implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of each registration of ownership preservation entered in the column of separate list Nos. 2, 6, and 10 of the attached real estate and the list No. 2, 6, to the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 2/5 are borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant.

The procedures for registration of cancellation of each registration of cancellation of ownership preservation on the real estate in the attached Form and each real estate listed in the list of registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter referred to as the "list") shall be implemented.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In order to change the administrative district of each real estate in the annexed list prepared during the Japanese occupation point period, and to change the administrative district of each real estate in Yangju-gun-gun-gun-gun-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-

B. On September 26, 1936, the Plaintiff’s prior-party 4 (Gai omitted omitted) had his permanent domicile in the Hosung-dong, Hosung-dong (Sek 24 omitted). On April 26, 1938, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 1 were succeeded to the property of Nonparty 1, his wife and the Plaintiff on July 5, 1935, when Nonparty 8 had already died on July 5, 1935, which was the death of Nonparty 4. Nonparty 9 died on November 10, 1959 and succeeded to the property of Nonparty 10. Nonparty 1, his wife and the Plaintiff on April 16, 1985, but the Plaintiff died on the sole inheritance of Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 10 on the sole inheritance of Nonparty 1, his property.

C. The Defendant completed each registration of preservation of ownership on each real estate listed in the separate sheet in the same sequence.

[Grounds for Recognition: The descriptions of evidence No. 1 to No. 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

According to the above facts of recognition, the address of Nonparty 4, who is the name of each land in the attached list, is the address of Nonparty 4, who is the name of the name of the land in the attached list, and the permanent domicile of Nonparty 4, who is the Plaintiff’s name of the Plaintiff, is the name of the family head of the family head of the family (number 24 omitted). However, according to the evidence No. 25, it can be recognized that the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family head of the family

If it is found that there has been a separate assessment titleholder with respect to the land for which registration of preservation of ownership has been made in the name of the State, the presumption power of registration of preservation of ownership is reversed and inappropriate. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation for each real estate listed in the separate sheet to

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1

Since the real estate listed in the attached list 1 was used as a road through which the Army Academy for Army Disease Support as a whole, a site for the Army Disease Support Center, from around 1937, and at least as to the above land had been occupied by prescription on April 4, 1990 on which the notice of non-state real estate was issued, and the registration of preservation of ownership of the above real estate in the name of the defendant is valid registration consistent with the substantive relations.

According to the evidence No. 11 (C. 11), in the case of the above real estate, the fact that the cadastral records were restored to roads on February 12, 1958 can be recognized, and according to the images of the evidence No. 16, the above real estate thereafter can be recognized as being used as a road leading to the Korea Army Academy via the Korea Army Academy. In a case where a certain land is restored to land on the cadastral record, unless there are special circumstances, such as the location, lot number, land category, land register, land register, and boundary of the land is presumed to have been restored to the area, parcel number, land category, land register, and boundary of the land before the cadastral records were restored to the original cadastral records due to a clerical error in the process of sanctioning the cadastral records (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da21757 Decided July 8, 2010).

With respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, under the current situation where the register or the official record capable of identifying the rights and obligations at the time of transfer or transfer with the lapse of 6/25 pages as to each real estate stated in the separate sheet, at least the defendant occupied the above real estate as an intention to own it from around 1958, and thus, it shall be deemed that the above real estate was acquired by prescription around 1978, and therefore the defendant's defense is well-grounded.

In this regard, the plaintiff asserts that if the defendant fails to submit compensation documents, etc., the presumption of possession with autonomy can be reversed, but the possession of the defendant's above real estate can be retroactively applied until 1937, which is the strong occupation period. However, it is reasonable to prove that the plaintiff who denied possession with autonomy should prove that the defendant's possession without permission is an illegal possession at present at the time of the above time. Thus, the above argument is rejected.

B. Determination as to real estate stated in [Attachment 5-7] list

Since the above real estate was managed as a road for public use from around 1937 to the point of time, the defendant's defense that occupied the above real estate. Thus, in full view of the overall purport of pleadings in the video of evidence Nos. 1 to 6, and evidence Nos. 7, the above real estate was merely about 62 lines of national highways with the light of light scisfying of light scisfy under Article 956 of the Decree No. 13 of the Joseon Road Decree of Dec. 1, 1938, the light scisfying of light scisfy under Article 13 of the Decree No. 956 of the 1956 of the 1956. Since from around 1963, it can be recognized that the mobile survey institute was indicated as a road. Accordingly, since the name of the national highway was changed from around 1963 to the name of the national highway, the defendant is deemed to possess the above real estate from around 1956.

As to this, the Plaintiff re-enters that the Defendant’s possession is an unauthorized possession, but as seen earlier, the location, lot number, land category, land register, and boundary of the land is presumed to have been restored as it is due to clerical error in the process of imposing sanctions on the restoration of the cadastral record, barring special circumstances, such as where the relevant public official erroneously prepared the cadastral record due to clerical error in the process of imposing sanctions on the restoration of the cadastral record. The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving special circumstances such as the erroneous preparation of the cadastral record due to clerical error by the relevant public official (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da21757 Decided July 8, 2010). The Defendant’s possession of the above real estate may be retroactive to the time of 1937. The Plaintiff’s preference is likely to receive compensation under the statutes at the time of the above time, and it is reasonable to prove that the Plaintiff denying possession is an unauthorized possession by the Defendant. Therefore, the above assertion is not accepted.

(c) Equitable defense of the two parties

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's claim is without merit, since the plaintiff's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son

Article 11 of the current Civil Code provides that matters concerning relatives and inheritance shall be governed by custom before the enforcement of the Civil Code. According to the previous customs of Korea, the dual-child system is not recognized in principle. However, the dual-child system has been allowed only when the dual-child relationship is changed due to the enforcement of the revised civil law on April 1, 1915. However, since the system was operated from April 1, 1915 to April 1, 1915, it was not legally allowed to adopt the dual-child relationship as the adopted child was not permitted, it is not required to allow the adopted child as the adopted child. However, since the new law was established on November 10, 1939 to enter into force on February 11, 194, Article 11-2 of the Korean Civil Code to be "after the adopted child" (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da1494, Apr. 1, 1915).

In this case, although documents were not submitted to prove when Nonparty 4, Nonparty 8, and Nonparty 9, who is the Plaintiff’s fleet, have no evidence to prove when they had a adoptive relationship, the statement in the family register is presumed to be sufficient. The evidence No. 1 (in the register No. 4), written by Nonparty 8 (in the register No. 1) and Nonparty 9 as both descendants, the relationship between the adoptive parents is presumed to be established before 1915, and at least the adoptive parents relationship of the Plaintiff was established before April 1, 1915 and February 11, 1940. However, the Defendant did not submit any evidence to prove that the relationship between the Plaintiff’s adoptive parents was invalid for a period from April 1, 1915 to February 11, 1940, the Defendant’s defense is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and it is so decided as above.

[Attachment]

Judges Jeong-won