In fact, it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between damages caused by duplicate registration of the same land.

In fact, even if the owner of the registration suffered loss due to double registration of the same land, there is no proximate causal relation between the fault of double registration and the loss of the owner of the registration.

Article 750 of the Civil Act. Contents of tort

2014 Gohap523393 Action

Han ○

○○ City, Korea:

January 23, 2015

February 13, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The Defendants pay to each Plaintiff 71,810,000 won with 5% interest per annum from January 13, 2014 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

(a) Registration of preceding preservation and registration of Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership;

1) On December 12, 1917, AAA City BB, 5 forest 21 forest 21 forest cl. (2,850 square meters, hereinafter referred to as “the forest cl. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. c. 3

2) On February 26, 1991, the forest land before the instant partition was registered in six parts of the forest land of 21-1 and 6 parts of the CC, 21-2 forest land of 21-2 forest land of 1,000,000 (hereinafter “1,950 square meters”; 21-2 forest land of 2,0000,0000,000 21-3 forest land of 21-3 forest land of 240 square meters (hereinafter “60 square meters”; 21-3 forest land of 21-3 forest land of 240 square meters in 1,000,000,000 21-2 forest land of 4-7 and 6,744 square meters in 1,000,000 square meters in 21-2 forest land of 1,000 square meters in each of the forest land of 21-2,000 square meters in each place.

3) However, on December 15, 1957, on the forestry register, the forest land was divided into 21-1 forest land and 21-2 forest land in mountain before the instant division, and the forest land was converted into 2,182 square meters on February 18, 197.

4) On October 5, 1952, DD, the Plaintiff’s father, purchased the forest land before the instant subdivision from AAB on October 5, 1952. On December 10, 1952, DD completed the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership under its own name with respect to the forest land before the instant subdivision. The Plaintiff completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of testamentary gift of 21-1 forest land, mountain land 21-2 forest land, mountain land, mountain land 21-3 forest land divided from the forest land before the instant subdivision. The Plaintiff completed the registration procedure for transfer of ownership for forest land 21-1 forest land, forest land 21-3 forest land divided from the forest land before the instant subdivision.

(b) Registration for preservation of follow-up and registration for transfer of ownership of GGG;

1) On October 5, 1959, FF support AB registry office AB of the EE District Court (hereinafter referred to as “instant follow-up preservation registration”) had completed registration of ownership in the name of AAB (hereinafter referred to as “after-up preservation registration”) with respect to CB B B 4-3 and 516 (hereinafter referred to as “CC 4-3”). After that, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of HH was completed on the ground of the completion of repayment on December 31, 1958 as the receipt of No. 6981 of the same registry office on the 26th of the same month, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of HH was completed on the ground of the completion of repayment on December 31, 1958. The registration office received on December 27, 1991 as the receipt of No. 29614, Dec. 27, 191; the ownership transfer registration in the name of HG 1706m2.

2) The land cadastre is written on December 5, 1957, in whichCC 4-3 land was written as registration conversion from forest land No. 21-2.

(c) Cancellation of the registration of preservation;

1) On February 22, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against GG and AA Si seeking cancellation of registration of initial ownership on the ground that the instant follow-up preservation registration for the instant land ofCC 4-3 and the ownership transfer registration for GGG constituted duplicate registration and thus null and void. The instant court rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff on the ground that the land ofCC 4-3 is substantially the same as forest land or is part thereof, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 12, 2012 through the appellate court and the final appeal.

2) After that, the register and land cadastre ofCC 4-3 were all closed, and mountain land No. 21-2 was corrected on December 3, 2012 into 1,66 square meters, and registration conversion was made on December 24, 2012, with land size No. 4-50 forest land No. 1,669 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

D. Adjustment between the Plaintiff and GG

1) GGG asserted that the acquisition by prescription for possession of the instant land has been completed, and filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff as EE District Court FF Branch 2012Kadan27632, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for ownership transfer registration against the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against GG against counterclaim (2013Gadan2050) on the instant land, and filed a lawsuit for the collection of excreta, the transfer of the instant land, and the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment. On July 22, 2013, the said court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for the main claim of GGGG by deeming that the prescription for possession of the instant land was interrupted due to the Plaintiff’s counterclaim filed before 20 years elapse from February 26, 191, on the ground that the Plaintiff received a specific legacy from DD and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and accepted the Plaintiff’s counterclaim.

2) On January 13, 2014, GG appealed on the above judgment, and the EE District Court Decision 2013Na12431, the appellate court, concluded the following adjustments.

1. GG and the Plaintiff:

A. Of the instant land, part 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, and 835 square meters in part of 1,2,3,4,5,7,81 among the instant land are owned by GG, and the portion of 834 square meters in part in the ship connected with each of the items in the 3,9,10,11,4, and3 of the same drawings are agreed to be owned by the Plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff shall implement the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 835 square meters in part 1 in the ship connecting each point of the attached drawings No. 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,88, among the instant land by reason of the instant conciliation to GG.

2. GGG confirms that there is no objection even if any of the dispositions taken by the Plaintiff, such as the waiver of ownership of pine trees on the ground of 834 square meters in part on board that connects each point of 3,9,10,11,4, and3 of the same drawings among the land in this case, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection.

3. The GG confirms that it was not about the wrong novels during the process (e.g., that the Plaintiff’s headquarters purchases the instant land from the Plaintiff’s assistance group and receives receipts), and decides to do so with respect to this point to the Plaintiff and to make efforts to avoid such misunderstandings in the future.

4. GG waives the remainder of the main claim and the remainder of the counterclaim.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant AA Si was aware of, or could have known of, the completion of the pre-registration of the instant preservation of the instant land, and the completion of the subsequent registration of the preservation of the instant land was erroneous. The Defendant Republic of Korea, in violation of the former Cadastral Act (amended by Act No. 165, Dec. 1, 1950; hereinafter referred to as the “former Cadastral Act”) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 624, Apr. 12, 1952; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act”). In so doing, it was erroneous for GGGG to repeatedly prepare and install the land cadastre for the same 4-3 land of the same CC as the 21-2 forest, in violation of the former Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 624, Apr. 12, 1952; hereinafter referred to as the “former Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act”). The Plaintiff transferred ownership of 835 square meters of the instant land to GG.

3. Fruits of the Defendants on overlapping registration

A. Defendant AA

As seen earlier, AA City BB completed the instant preservation registration with respect to the forest land before the instant partition on November 8, 1952, and completed the instant subsequent preservation registration with respect to land 4-3 included in the said forest. At the time, the land cadastre for land land 4-3, stated that the said land was subject to registration conversion from mountain land No. 21-2, but the said land remains in the forest land cadastre for land No. 21-2, and the said forest land register and the certified copy of the register were remaining. In examining the above forest land register and the certified copy of the register, it appears that the land No. 4-3 was identical to the forest land No. 21-2, which was divided and separated from the forest before the instant partition. The B B B was at the time and the duplicate registration was completed.

AA City BB had a corporate personality as a local government in accordance with the Local Autonomy Act enacted by Act No. 32 on July 4, 1949, but it was reverted to the affiliated military group due to the enactment of ad hoc measures law on local autonomy by Act No. 707 on September 1, 1961, the negligence on the surface at AA City shall be deemed to be the negligence on the part of the defendant A Si (the name before the reorganization of the administrative district is "AA group").

B. Defendant Republic of Korea

The provisions of Articles 4 and 23 of the former Cadastral Act stipulate that “The land cadastre and the forest land cadastre shall be kept and registered,” Article 1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “The land register shall be kept and the necessary matters pursuant to the Act shall be registered,” and Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provides that “The land register, the cadastral map, the forest register, and the forest land map shall be kept in accordance with the cadastral record and shall be arranged so as to be consistent with the regular cadastral record at all times.” The public official in charge of FF Tax under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea shall prepare the land cadastre of this case against the above provisions and fails to adjust its location, lot number, and boundary. Since the latter preservation registration in this case is deemed based on the land cadastre for the land cadastre for the 4-3 land in this case, the defendant Republic of Korea shall be negligent in completing the overlapping registration as above.

4. Whether any loss has occurred due to double registration.

According to the following circumstances, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s loss of ownership of 835 square meters out of the instant land was caused by double registration. There is no proximate causal relation between the Defendants’ negligence and the damages claimed by the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff’s assertion premised on this is without merit.

① In the event that a registration of initial ownership has been completed in duplicate due to the different names of the registered titleholders on the same real estate, it is reasonable to interpret that the registration of initial ownership was null and void under the Registration of Real Estate Act, which adopts the first real estate-to-land registration principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 87Meu2961, 87Da453, Nov. 27, 1990). Since there are no circumstances to deem that the preceding registration of initial ownership is null and void, the subsequent registration of this case is null and void. The Plaintiff won the lawsuit seeking the registration of initial ownership in Defendant A Si and the cancellation of ownership transfer registration of GGG, and eventually, the registration of initial ownership was cancelled.

② The completion of the acquisition by prescription cannot be asserted on the ground of the latter registration of preservation or the registration of transfer based thereon (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da12511, Oct. 17, 1996). Even if the prescription period for acquisition by a person who completed the registration of transfer based on the registration of preservation of the foregoing real estate was completed by occupying it with the intent of ownership ownership for twenty (20) years, it cannot be deemed valid on the ground that the registration of transfer of ownership conforms to the substantive relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107064, Jul. 14, 201). As long as it is not likely that the registration of preservation of the instant land is valid, the mere fact that the latter registration of preservation of ownership has completed, cannot be deemed as having caused the risk that the Plaintiff would lose its ownership on the instant land. Even if there is room for the completion of the acquisition by prescription as asserted by the Plaintiff, the Defendants cannot be seen as constituting a special damage caused by the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership.

③ Furthermore, on February 26, 1991, the Plaintiff divided the forest land before the instant partition into KRW 21-2 and two parcels. According to the forest land register on December 15, 1957, it may be deemed that DD divided the forest land before the instant subdivision into KRW 21-1 and mountain land 21-2. In addition, in light of the cadastral map of the instant land and CC 4-3 land, the boundary of the said land is almost the same. Accordingly, the Plaintiff or DD appears to have sufficiently known the fact that HH or GGG occupied the instant land at the time of dividing the instant forest before the instant subdivision. In light of this, it is difficult to view that GG, etc. occupied the instant land for more than 20 years, thereby asserting the completion of the prescriptive acquisition.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts acknowledged earlier, Gap evidence No. 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

5. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is without merit.