beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs own the shares in the attached Form No. 377 square meters of V road in Busan-gun.
Reasons
1. The family of W, who died on October 12, 1919, of the previous year of recognition (1919), is identical to the attached household, and the inheritance share of W, who is the inheritor of W, is the same as that of the attached inheritance share, and the one recorded in W’s certified copy of the attached inheritance share is the “X.”
The land category was changed to the road on October 24, 1931 after being divided intoY on October 24, 1931. On September 16, 1936, the land cadastre drafted on September 16, 1936 is indicated as “the date of change, the circumstances of the cause of change, the address, the Z, and the name AAA” in the ownership column.
The names of the above certified copies and the names of the cadastre in Korean are different from both “AB” and “AC” in the names.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6 through 35 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. (1) The defendant asserts that there is no benefit to seek confirmation of ownership against the State, since the State denies that the land in this case is owned by the aforementioned AA, the registrant of the land in this case’s land cadastre, and the State did not assert ownership.
(2) In light of Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, if the ownership cannot be proved by a certified copy of land cadastre or a certified copy of the forest land cadastre in the registration of preservation of ownership of real estate, the registration of preservation of ownership can only be conducted by proving the ownership by the judgment. Furthermore, if a state agency, which is the competent authority, contests its ownership, a lawsuit to obtain such judgment may be brought against the State.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da34390 delivered on July 10, 2001). In light of the above legal principles, the land of this case is unregistered, and only AA is registered as its owner on the land cadastre, and it cannot be proved that the land of this case is owned by W, the decedent of the plaintiffs.