Whether the property shall be returned to the property devolving upon which the Minister of Justice has not obtained confirmation under Act No. 120 of the excessive government

If a person was decided to cancel the reversion of any real estate purchased from a Japanese person before August 9, 1945 but the ownership transfer registration has not been made by the Central Government Agency, the latter shall not be returned to the property devolving upon the State even without obtaining confirmation from the Minister of Justice under Act 120 of the excessive Government.

Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the United States Armed Forces Act (amended by Act No. 33 of the United States Armed Forces Act, Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5

Supreme Court Decision 70Da2911 delivered on February 9, 1971 (Supreme Court Decision 70Da2911 delivered on February 9, 1971, Supreme Court Decision 19DaDa177 delivered on June 19, 199, Supreme Court Decision 2Da168 delivered on December 9, 199)

Korea

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (72 Gohap6085) in the first instance trial

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

ㅍ피고는, 원고에 대하여 서울 성동구 신당동 401의 2 대지 42평에 관하여 서울민사지방법원 성동등기소 1970.7.4. 접수 제28448호로서 된 1970.7.2. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를 이행하라.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

With respect to the real estate stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as this case's real estate), a registration has been made as owned by Nonparty 1, Japan on the registry at the time of August 9, 1945. Under the court below's order, Defendant 2, the court below, upon receipt of a decision of cancellation of reversion on the real estate from the Central Government Agency on August 14, 1948 under the Ordinance of the Maritime Affairs Office concerning the Summary Procedure for the Settlement of Appeal on Property Belonging to the State on April 17, 1948, and on the ground of sale on May 2, 1945 (this registration is supplemental to the Central Government Agency Order No. 16576, Oct. 4, 1948). After completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Nonparty 2, the fact that the ownership transfer registration has been made under the name of the defendant, such as the entry in the purport of the claim, is not disputed between the parties concerned.

As of August 9, 1974, the Plaintiff had a registration of ownership transfer under the name of Japan as of August 9, 1974, and thereafter became owned by the US military government pursuant to Article 33 of the US military law. The Plaintiff obtained a decision of cancellation of ownership transfer from the Central Government Agency. However, this real estate was restored to its original ownership due to the lack of confirmation by the Minister of Justice pursuant to subparagraph 120 of the excessive government law. Thus, the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Nonparty 2 was invalid due to the lack of the cause of cancellation of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant's name. Thus, it is argued that this request has been made to obtain the cancellation registration procedure, and that the registration of ownership transfer has not been made under the name of Nonparty 1, No. 2, and 3 ( certified copy of each register) and the testimony and arguments of Nonparty 3, the first instance court and the purport of this real estate, and that this real estate was purchased under the name of Nonparty 2 under the name of Nonparty 3, 195.

In the same way, even though Nonparty 2 was determined to cancel the attribution of the Central Government Agency as to this real estate, it does not lose the real rights to this real estate because he did not obtain the confirmation from the Minister of Justice under Article 120 of the excessive Government Act, and therefore, it does not immediately return the real estate to the original state (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da2911, Feb. 9, 1971). Therefore, even if he did not obtain the confirmation from the Minister of Justice under Article 120 of the excessive Government Act, the transfer of ownership registration in the name of Nonparty 2 on this real estate shall be a valid registration in accordance with the actual ownership relationship, so the plaintiff's above assertion on the premise that the registration invalidation of the above registration is void is groundless.

Therefore, the plaintiff's objection claim shall be dismissed because it is without merit, and the part against the defendant in the original judgment which differs from this conclusion is unfair, and the defendant's appeal is reasonable. Accordingly, the plaintiff's objection claim is revoked by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act as to the burden of litigation costs.

Judge Han Man-Sung (Presiding Judge)