[1] The presumption of ownership transfer registration by the procedure for the registration of loss recovery

[2] The scope of real estate which can be presumed to have effect on the registration of restitution of loss

[1] Where a registration of ownership transfer has been made in the real estate register, it shall be presumed that the registrant has acquired a legitimate ownership by the reason for registration, and unless there are any particular circumstances, it shall be presumed that the registration was duly accepted and processed by the registry official, and the legal principle on the presumption of ownership transfer shall also apply to cases where the registration of ownership transfer was made by the procedure for recovery registration after the loss of the registry.

[2] The presumption of the registration of restitution of loss is only effective to the pertinent real estate registered for restitution, but it does not extend to other real estate divided from the original real estate before the division.

[1] Articles 79, 80, and 81 of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [2] Articles 79, 80, and 81 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 81Da505 delivered on December 26, 1984 (Gong1985, 242), Supreme Court Decision 90Meu18637 delivered on November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 213), Supreme Court Decision 92Da9340 delivered on July 10, 1992 (Gong192, 2365)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Park Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Defendant's Law Firm Sami General Law Office, Attorney Kim Mok-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 95Na28092 delivered on April 12, 1996

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the ownership transfer registration under the restoration of the name of Nonparty 2 was completed on August 10, 1947, "No. 7530", "No. 7530", "No. 1947, the date of receipt of the registration prior to the destruction as of April 2, 1953, and "No. 198", "No. 4 was presumed to have been completed on August 10, 1947 due to the restoration of the name of Nonparty 2, the original deceased Nonparty 1 by the entry of the evidence No. 15-1, and determined that the ownership transfer registration was duly executed by the restoration registration procedure from around 3,038 to March 20, 1953, and no registration of the restoration of the ownership was presumed to have been completed for the restoration registration under the above presumption that the ownership transfer registration was destroyed or lost by the restoration registration under the name of Nonparty 2, who was the public official.

2. Where a registration of transfer of ownership has been made in the real estate register, the person who registered the transfer of ownership is presumed to have acquired legitimate ownership based on the grounds for registration, and unless there are any particular circumstances, the registration is presumed to have been duly accepted and processed by the registration officer, and therefore, the legal principle as to the presumption of validity of the registration is equally applicable to cases where the transfer of ownership is registered through the recovery registration procedure after the transfer of ownership is destroyed by the registry (see Supreme Court Decisions 81Da505, Dec. 26, 1984; 90Meu18637, Nov. 27, 1990, etc.). Thus, even if the record is examined and explained about the grounds for appeal, it cannot be said that the court below's failure to examine or explain the grounds for appeal, such as whether the former registration certificate, which forms the basis document for the above recovery registration, exists, constitutes an unlawful or unjust act.

In addition, it is not impossible to separately register the recovery of land divided after the loss of the registry, and where the registration of recovery of land divided is to be completed at one time, it may be stated equally by means of copying, etc. for the convenience of entry. Thus, the above recovery registration does not be suspected that the registration of recovery is not lawfully completed on the ground that only one of the lots of land partitioned has been transcribed, or the registration of recovery has been completed at one time. The grounds for appeal on this point cannot be accepted.

3. The presumption of restitution registration is merely an effect on the pertinent real estate registered for restitution, but it does not extend to other real estate divided from the original real estate before its subdivision.

Nevertheless, the court below's explanation that the above non-party 2, who is the title holder of the above restoration registration, is presumed to have acquired the ownership of the real estate of this case, which was divided into not only 1,868 square meters but also 3,038 square meters, cannot be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of the restoration registration.

However, as examined below, each registration of preservation of ownership of Defendant 1 with respect to each of the instant real estate and each transfer of ownership with respect to each of the instant real estate owned by Defendant 2, shall be valid as a registration consistent with the substantive relationship. As such, the lower court’s erroneous judgment did not affect the outcome of the judgment, and thus, the ground of appeal as to this point is without merit.

4. In light of the records, the court below is justified in holding that the non-party 2 purchased part of the non-party 2's 1,170 square meters before the above division from the non-party 2 on March 20, 1953 as part of the non-party 3,038 square meters prior to the division, and that the non-party 1 purchased the part of the non-party 1,170 square meters prior to the above division from the non-party 2 on March 1948. The non-party 3,038 square meters prior to the above division and the non-party 2 was divided into the non-party 1,868 square meters and the non-party 1,170 square meters prior to the division, and the non-party 2 registered the restoration of the destruction of the property, and the non-party 2 violated the rules of evidence as to the restoration of the property, and all of the non-party 1's grounds for appeal are without merit.

In addition, if the facts are different, each registration of preservation of ownership and each transfer of ownership in Defendant 2, each of the registrations of Defendant 1 on each of the instant real estate, which was divided into approximately 1,170 square meters above ( Address 3 omitted), shall be valid as a registration in accordance with the substantive relationship.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and the grounds of appeal disputing this point are not accepted.

5. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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 Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)