(a) Validity of entry in the ownership transfer registration on the old forest ledger;

(b) Whether the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer seeking the recovery of the true name is subject to extinctive prescription;

C. Nature of possession by the seller of real estate

A. According to Article 2 of the former Rules of Land Conservation (Ordinance of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries No. 113, Aug. 23, 1920) which was applied mutatis mutandis by Article 2 of the former Rules of Land Conservation (Ordinance No. 113, Apr. 25, 1914) of the former Rules of Land Conservation (Ordinance No. 45, Apr. 25, 1914), the transfer of ownership shall not be registered in the forest land register unless a public official’s notice is given. Thus, if a transfer of ownership is registered as a transfer of ownership in the name of a network A in the forest land register as of the forest land at the time, the forest

B. In a case where the registry is destroyed, a registration for the recovery of destruction can be made, but if a registration for the preservation of ownership has already been made in the name of a seller’s heir with respect to the relevant real estate without the registration for recovery, the buyer or his heir may seek against the seller’s heir for the implementation of the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership in place of the restoration of destruction of the above registry, and this is not a right extinguished by

C. The possession of a seller who sells real estate to another person and is liable to deliver it shall be changed to the possession of another owner unless there are special circumstances.

A. Article 2 of the former Rules on the Forestry Ledger (Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 113 of Aug. 23, 1920) and Article 2(b) of the former Rules on the Land cadastre (Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 45 of Apr. 25, 1914)

A. Supreme Court Decision 92Da12216 delivered on June 26, 1992 (Gong1992, 2275), 92Da3083 delivered on February 26, 1993 (Gong1993, 1080), 92Da2064 delivered on September 14, 1992 (Gong192, 282), 92Da26468, 26475 delivered on December 24, 1992 (Gong193, 597)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and three others

Daegu District Court Decision 92Na2460 delivered on August 28, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defense that the extinctive prescription of the Defendants expired on the ground that the Plaintiff’s father Nonparty 2 purchased the instant forest from the deceased Nonparty 1 to the deceased Nonparty 1 on April 21, 1926 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land cadastre (it appears to be a clerical error in the forest register) in its name, as long as the purchaser occupies the forest upon delivery of the real estate. Since it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s father Nonparty 2 purchased the instant forest from the deceased Nonparty 1 to the deceased Nonparty 1 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land cadastre by completing the registration of ownership transfer, Nonparty 2 had the right to claim ownership transfer of the instant forest.

According to Article 2 of the Cadastral Rule (No. 45 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs No. 113 of Aug. 23, 1920) which was enforced as of April 21, 1926, Article 2 of the said Regulation, Article 2 of the Cadastral Rule (No. 45 of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs of Apr. 25, 1914) provides that the transfer of ownership shall not be registered in the forest register unless the public official's notice is given. Thus, if the ownership transfer is registered in the current forest register under the name of the deceased non-party 2, the ownership transfer registration was made in the above date and time with regard to the forest of this case, and the forest of this case shall not be readily concluded as unregistered real estate (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 76Da2042, Apr. 12, 197; 89Ma389, Mar. 20, 190; 89Meu2616, Mar. 27, 199)

As can be seen, in a case where the registry is destroyed or lost, a registration for the recovery of destruction can be made, but if the registration of preservation of ownership has already been made in the name of the seller’s heir with respect to the relevant real estate without the registration of recovery, the buyer or his heir may seek against the seller’s heir for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership in lieu of the restoration of destruction or loss of the above registry. This is not the right extinguished

The judgment of the court below is erroneous, but the conclusion that the plaintiff's right to claim ownership transfer registration of the forest of this case against the defendants did not go against the extinctive prescription is just and reasonable.

2. The possession of a seller who sells real estate to another person and is liable to deliver it is deemed to be changed to the possession of a third party, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da20064 delivered on September 14, 1992).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendants' testimony of the non-party 3, the non-party 4, and the non-party 5, who seem to correspond to the defendants' assertion that they possessed the forest of this case for the above period, is not able to believe in light of the above fact that they are children of the deceased non-party 6 or are familiar with them, and it is not enough to recognize them merely with Gap evidence 9-5, and in addition, the fact that the non-party 1 sold the forest of this case to the deceased non-party 2, the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff's father, as seen above, was the fact that he sold the forest of this case to the non-party 2, who is the plaintiff's father. Thus, even if the defendant, the seller, from a certain point after the above sale of the forest of this case, he had occupied the forest of this case from the point of time after the sale of this case,

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all 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 Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)