In a case where the actual cause of registration of ownership preservation under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate was conducted after December 31, 1974, whether the presumption of ownership preservation is recognized (negative)

Article 3 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094 of Dec. 31, 197), Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 92Da53910 Decided July 16, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2284) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da32200 Decided August 24, 2006

Cheongyang Cyyang ○○ (Attorney Na-man, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and two others

Daegu District Court Decision 2008Na21462 Decided August 20, 2009

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of defendant 1 and non-party 4 on August 31, 1981 pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, invalidation, and hereinafter "Special Support Act"), and that the registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of defendant 1 and non-party 1 and non-party 4 on July 2, 1997, on the premise that the plaintiff's clan purchased the above real estate from the transfer of the transfer of the transfer of the transfer of the real estate and then registered the ownership in the name of non-party 1, 2, and 3 on July 2, 199, and that the registration was made in the name of defendant 2 and non-party 3 on July 3, 197, on the premise that the registration of preservation of ownership was made in the name of the above defendant 1 and non-party 1 on the premise that the registration was void.

However, in light of the purport of Article 3 of the Special Provision Act, registration of preservation of ownership, which can be made under the special provision, shall be interpreted only to have been made before December 31, 1974, which is the cause of the act, such as sale, donation, exchange, etc., so if the cause of the act is recognized thereafter, it cannot be deemed to have the capacity to presume the registration as stated above (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da32200, Aug. 24, 2006, etc.). According to the records, it can be known that Defendant 1 himself purchased the share of the real estate from a clan of this case, which is the non-party 5, who is one's own additional provision, and made a registration of preservation of ownership, based on its title after being entrusted with the title of the real estate of this case, and the registration of preservation of ownership was made under the special provision of this case, and thus, the court below's assertion that the registration of preservation of ownership was void under the special provision of this Act cannot be viewed to be justified.

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)