The presumption history of the registration of restitution of loss, which is clearly recorded by the date of receipt, receipt number, and cause date of the preceding registration.

Even if the date of receipt, receipt number, and cause date of the previous registration are indicated in the registration for recovery of destruction, it is presumed that it was legally accepted and processed by the registration officer unless there are special circumstances.

Articles 80 and 81 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Da3286 Decided November 24, 1981 (Gong1982, 66) Supreme Court Decision 93Da61970 Decided March 17, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 1707) Supreme Court Decision 95Da28601, 28618 Decided December 26, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 529) Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da12511 Decided October 17, 1996 (Gong196Ha, 3186)

1. The case where the court below held that the defendant 1 was liable for damages due to the death of the defendant.

Defendant (Law Firm Daegu General Law Office, Attorneys Park Park-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 96Na9582 delivered on June 27, 1997

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with records, the court below presumed that even if the date of receipt, receipt number, and cause date of the previous registration in the registration for the recovery of destruction is clearly indicated, it was legally accepted and processed by the registry official (see Supreme Court Decisions 80Da3286, Nov. 24, 1981; 95Da28601, Nov. 26, 1995; 28618, Nov. 26, 1995). The forest of this case is the real estate under the title trust of Nonparty 1 with the Plaintiff, and the deceased Nonparty 2 was registered for the recovery of destruction under the name of Nonparty 1 and his name, and thus, it is just to have rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the registration is null and void, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)