Judgment in favor of the Central Land Administration Agency and confirmation of the Minister of Justice

If a judgment was rendered in favor of the Minister of Justice in a lawsuit claiming the confirmation of ownership and the transfer registration procedure instituted against the central land administration office in accordance with military law Nos. 173, 209, and 215, it shall not be said that the change in the substantive right to the object was caused by the confirmation of the Minister of Justice pursuant to the Act on the Confirmation of Cancellation of Reversion in Summary Appeal Procedure (No. 120).

Article 2 of the Act on the Cancellation and Confirmation of Reversion to Summary Appeal Procedures

Supreme Court Decision 68Da75 delivered on March 5, 1968 (Dakh 1173 delivered on June 11, 1968, 160Da192 delivered on April 15, 1969 (Dakh 393 delivered on April 15, 1968, Article 2(4)1057 delivered on July 21, 1970 (Dakh 9024 delivered on July 18, 198, Article 2(2) of the Act on the Confirmation of Cancellation of Reversion of Summary Appeal Procedures(Abolition), Article 162 delivered on April 15, 1969, and Article 2(7) of the Act on the Confirmation of Cancellation of Reversion of Reversion of Summary Appeal Procedures(Closed)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Seoul Central District Court (68Ga5350) in the first instance trial

All appeals by the defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

Plaintiff

(1) Defendant 1 received 12826, 13 December 13, 1967, 196, the So-called Seoul District Court So-called the So-called Seoul District Court So-called the So-called Seoul District Court No. 12826, Dec. 13, 1967;

(2) Defendant 2 issued No. 12825 of the receipt of the above registry office on December 13, 1967 with respect to 2 6 forest 37 forest finite at the same place.

(3) On December 13, 1967, the Defendant Textbook Co., Ltd.: (a) followed each procedure for the cancellation of the registration of each transfer of ownership as prescribed by the above registry No. 12824 on December 13, 1967, with respect to the 9 non-permanent forest 35-2 forest 35-3 forest 9 and 35-4 forest 35-4 forest

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In full view of the facts as follows: (a) No. 1677 on February 21, 1949; (b) No. 3450, Oct. 14, 1966; (c) No. 1474, Mar. 15, 1967; (d) No. 2026, Mar. 31, 1967; (d) No. 3; (e) No. 8213, Sep. 7, 1967; and (e) No. 2, No. 500, Oct. 26, 1967; and (e) No. 1500, Oct. 26, 1967; and (e) No. 1500, Oct. 24, 1967; and (e) No. 12826, Oct. 26, 197; and (e) No. 1500, Oct. 31, 2002.

The number No. 4, 14, Dong-dong, Masan-gun, Dong-dong, the plaintiff's permanent domicile and domicile, belongs to the jurisdiction of 8.15 years after the date of the administrative district, and the plaintiff's seal impression belongs to the jurisdiction of the Masan-dong office, and it is only recorded in the register of the Masan-si office, and there is no record of the register of the Masan-si office, and there is no fact that the Masan-gun office issued the plaintiff's seal impression at the Masan-dong office. The defendant of the court below is forged or stolen by forging or stealing the plaintiff's seal seal and the official seal of the head of Dong-gun-gun and Dong-dong, which is not the jurisdiction over the issuance of the plaintiff's seal impression, and it can be presumed that the fact that the non-party 1's ownership registration procedure for the above 4 forest land was completed with the forged attached documents, and the testimony of the non-party 5 witness of the court below cannot be reversed and there is no other evidence to reverse this.

Thus, the registration of transfer of ownership by Nonparty 1 on the above four parcels of forest land shall be deemed to be the registration of invalidity where all the causes are defective, and therefore, each registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendants shall be deemed to be the registration of invalidity where each registration of transfer of ownership was made in the last order through Nonparty 1.

However, the defendant et al.'s legal representative was owned by the non-party 6 in Japan, and the plaintiff was awarded a favorable judgment against the central land administrative office without the plaintiff's claim against the non-party 3. It is invalid because the plaintiff was not confirmed by the Minister of Justice under 120 of the military law (which shall be recognized as a mistake in the law No. 120 of the Republic of Korea) since the plaintiff was not entitled to the plaintiff's ownership transfer registration of the above land 4. The plaintiff's legal representative's claim against the non-party 1 was 5. The plaintiff's legal representative's claim against the non-party 2 for the above 9. The plaintiff's ownership transfer registration of the above land belongs to the non-party 4. The plaintiff's legal representative's legal representative's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's legal representative's claim against the non-party 9. The plaintiff's legal representative's legal representative's ownership transfer registration of the above land shall not be acknowledged as belonging to the plaintiff 1.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration which invalidated the defects in the defendants' name as to the above woodland based on its ownership is reasonable, and therefore, it shall be accepted. The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and the defendants' appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition under Articles 93 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the burden of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Judge)