2013Na201070 Registration of cancellation of ownership

A person shall be appointed.

Attorney ○-○, et al.

Korea

The Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea

Litigation performer ○○○

Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Gahap87797 Decided May 23, 2013

June 13, 2014

June 30, 2014

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

It is confirmed that 24,992 square meters of forests and fields owned by the plaintiff, such as ○○○○○○○○, Seo-gu, Seoju-gu.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The written investigation of forest land on 00 ○○○○-ri, Gyeonggi-do, the land of this case, including the title holder of the assessment of the forest land of this case and the administrative district, etc. 1) is written as follows: (a) B having a domicile in ○○-ri, 00 on June 15, 1918 (seven years), and (b) 00 ○○-ri, Busan-ri, the land of this case, ○○-ri, ○○-ri, the land of this case

2) On July 1, 1973, the name of the forest is changed to the Gyeonggi-gun ○○○, Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, the Gyeonggi-do, the name of the forest was changed. On August 31, 1979, the area of the forest was converted to that of the square meters, and on March 3, 1996.

1. The name of "Saju-gun" was changed to "Saju-si" and now the name was changed to ○○○○○○○, Maju-si, Chungcheongnam-si, Seoju-si (hereinafter "the forest of this case") 24,92 square meters.

B. On August 13, 1973, at the request of the claimant C, the Government branch of the Seoul Civilian District Court rendered a decision to appoint C, E, and F as the administrator of the absentee D (the same place as the last address in the Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-gun) on August 13, 197, at the request of the Claimant C, the administrator of C, E, and 2) was the legal representative of D (the address of address is unknown, and the last Gyeonggi-do ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○62) on the 20th anniversary of the Government branch of the Seoul District Court, and the owner of G (the above 197th judgment on January 31, 197) on the 9th judgment on the 197th judgment on the forest land.

4) In accordance with the above decision, on March 9, 197, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○), and on August 13, 1973, the registration of appointment of administrator C, E, and F as the cause for registration, was completed on August 13, 197 (No. 8,99): Provided, That the indication of the land in the title of the above registry was written on the 1st, 5th, 15th, 25th, 8th, 1, 197, 200, 3th, 5th, 3th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 5th, 196, 3th, 5th, 6th, 3000.

[Ground of recognition] Uncontentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 13 (where there are several numbers, including each number), each fact-finding reply to the court records keeping office at the trial of the party, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The judgment of the court below in light of the above legal principles as to the forest land of this case was made by the plaintiff, and the ownership of the forest of this case was not changed since the ruling of the court below.

22. Pursuant to Article 10(1)2 of the Addenda of Act No. 471, which was amended by Act No. 1668, Dec. 31, 1964; hereinafter the same), the forest of this case lost its validity since it did not complete the registration of ownership transfer for six years after the Civil Act enters into force. Therefore, since the forest of this case was under circumstances by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was the sole heir of the land under circumstances by the Plaintiff, the forest of this case is seeking confirmation of ownership against the Defendant as to the forest of this case, which is unregistered land.

B. The defendant's argument

The same person cannot be deemed as B and the Plaintiff’s assistance division in the instant forest. Since the instant forest was transferred to another person from the assessment agent, the ownership of the title holder was lost, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff is the heir B.

3. Determination on the legitimacy of a lawsuit

First, we examine ex officio the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

A. In a case where the registration of ownership preservation has already been completed in the name of a third party, and even in the land cadastre or forest land cadastre, if the third party is entered as the owner, if the State denies the ownership of a third party and is judged to cancel the registration of ownership or obtain confirmation of ownership against the above registered titleholder, barring any special circumstance such as continuous assertion of ownership by the State, the registration of ownership preservation can be completed based on the judgment, and there is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the State separately for the purpose of registration of ownership preservation (Supreme Court Decision 194 delivered on June 6, 194).

10. See Supreme Court Decision 94Da1883 delivered on April 1, 199

B. We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine.

According to the above facts, even if the land indication in the title section on the registry of the forest of this case in this case on the registration of "the land indication on the title section on the registry of the forest of this case is not "the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, in the case of Pakistan-si, in view of the circumstances surrounding the registration of preservation of ownership

In addition, even if D was registered as the owner of the instant forest in the forest register on the forest land of this case and cancelled, it can be seen that the land indication on the title of the instant forest in the registry on the forest land of this case, which manages the above forest register, was erroneous in the fact that there was no registration register on the instant forest land of this case, due to the fact that there was no erroneous indication of the land indication on the title of the registry on the forest of this case, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

In addition, the Defendant only contests that B, who received the assessment of the instant forest in this case, was not the same as the Plaintiff’s father or that his ownership was transferred to a third party after the assessment of the instant forest and field, and did not dispute that the instant forest and field were not owned D but owned by the State.

In full view of the above circumstances, it is determined that the Plaintiff cannot be deemed that there is a benefit to seek confirmation of ownership of the forest of this case against the Defendant separately for the purpose of preserving ownership after cancelling the registration of preservation of ownership of the above D name (On the other hand, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Eul evidence No. 9, H filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership of the forest of this case against the Jung-gu District Court Decision No. 2007Da16260, Apr. 23, 2007 (which can be recognized as the fact that the registration of preservation of ownership was terminated by the settlement recommendation on Dec. 15, 2009).

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit seeking confirmation of ownership of the forest of this case against the Defendant, the State, on the premise that the forest of this case is unregistered land is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus dismissed, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair. Therefore, the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-chul

Judges Kim Gung-sik

Judges Lee Young-young

1) Article 29 (Adjustment of Land Owner) (1) Any change of land owner registered in the cadastral record shall be registered.

Notice of completion of registration, certificate of completion of registration, register, etc. or abstract thereof by a registry office;

shall be adjusted by the computerized registration data provided: Provided, That the competent authority shall have jurisdiction over the owners of new land

shall be investigated and registered.

(2) The land whose owner is not registered in the office of general administration or management agency under the State Properties Act.

Where an application for registration of owner is filed under Article 8 (3) of the Act, the competent authority may register it.

(3) In cases under paragraph (1), when the indication of land recorded in the register is inconsistent with the cadastral record.

shall not be arranged. In this case, the purport thereof shall be notified to the competent registry office.

(4) The competent authority shall, if deemed necessary, register the competent authority to determine whether the cadastral records and the real estate register are consistent.

shall be investigated and verified by perusal of the register, and if any matter is found not in conformity therewith, it shall be found.

Official cadastral records shall be ex officio by using computerized registration data provided by the registry, etc. or registry office.

or request landowners and other interested persons to file an application, etc. necessary for their conformity;

of the corporation.

Article 10 (Transitional Provisions Concerning Transfer of Ownership) (1) Real estate due to a juristic act before this Act enters into force

The acquisition, loss or change of real right shall lose its effect unless it is registered within six years from the day this Act enters into force.