The presumption of transfer registration of ownership by the procedure for the registration of restitution of loss; however, the receipt date, receipt number, and the cause date of the former registration are indicated as “not known”;

A. In a case where a registration of transfer of ownership has been made on the real estate registration register, the titleholder of the registration shall be presumed to have acquired a legitimate ownership by the grounds for registration, and this legal principle shall not apply to the case where the registration of transfer of ownership was made by the recovery registration procedure after the loss of

B. If a registration of recovery due to destruction is entered in the register, it is reasonable to presume that it has been legally accepted and processed by the registry officer, barring any particular circumstance, and the fact that the date of receipt, receipt number, cause date, etc. of the former registration is indicated as an “not known” cannot be deemed as a defect in the procedure for the above recovery registration. Thus, the above circumstance alone alone cannot be deemed as lacking the presumption of the registration of recovery.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Articles 79 and 80 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 81Da505 delivered on December 26, 1984 (Gong1985,242). Supreme Court en banc Decision 80Da1795 Delivered on October 14, 1980 (Gong1980,1324) decided November 24, 1981 (Gong1982,66) 80Da3286 Decided November 27, 1990 (Gong191,213)

Jeonju ○○ Military Branch of Korea (Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 5 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na3300 delivered on February 14, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Where a registration of transfer of ownership has been made on the real estate registration register, the titleholder of the registration shall be presumed to have acquired a legitimate ownership by the reason for registration. This legal principle does not apply where the registration of transfer of ownership was made by the procedure for recovery registration after the loss of the register (see Supreme Court Decision 81Da505 delivered on December 26, 1984).

After the original registry of the forest of this case was destroyed at the time of the Korean War on March 27, 1954, by means of the restoration registration on March 27, 1954, the Seoul District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 829) received the North Branch of North Korea Branch of the District Court (hereinafter “Seoul District Court”) and completed the registration on the old registry concerning the forest of this case on November 5, 197, when the date of receipt and receipt unknown, the date of cause unknown, and the date of acquisition, and the ownership transfer registration on Nonparty 1 was transferred to the above registry on the current registry on November 5, 197, and then recognized the fact that the ownership transfer registration, etc. of the Defendants was completed in turn due to the reasons stated in its holding, and the decision of the court below that all the entries in the registry were presumed to be effective registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship is justified, and there is no error of law by omission

The issue is that the defendant's legal representative is aware of the fact that the registered titleholder on the registry prior to the destruction of the forest of this case was registered as Nonparty 2 in the process of argument by the court below, and that the registration titleholder on the registry prior to the destruction of the forest of this case does not coincide with the restoration registrant's restoration registrant's registration titleholder, and that the presumption of the registration of the destruction of this case was broken as well as Eul evidence 3-1 and 2 are supported by the facts. However, according to the records, the above purport of the defendants' assertion or documentary evidence, which was pointed out by the plaintiff 1, stated only the fact that the above non-party 2, the above non-party 1's father, who was the assistant of the above non-party 1, had lawfully purchased or acquired the forest of this case and completed the registration in its name. Furthermore, it cannot be viewed that the last registered titleholder on the registry prior to the destruction of the forest of this case, and therefore, if the registration of recovery by the destruction was recorded in the registry, it cannot be viewed as being inconsistent with the above reasons for recovery registration No. 181.

In addition, there is no clear evidence to acknowledge that Nonparty 1, etc., the nominal owner of the registration for the recovery of destruction, has purchased or acquired the forest of this case from the former owner, or the fact that the said forest is registered as “unregistered as of June 15, 1976” in the old forest register cannot be deemed as naturally shouldering the presumption of ownership transfer registration due to the above recovery. The arguments cannot be adopted in entirety.

2. We examine the reasoning of the judgment below in accordance with the records. The court below is just in rejecting all the evidence that the court below found the plaintiff's assertion, that the above non-party 1 was destroyed while managing the forest land of this case as a member of the plaintiff clan and did not believe that the registration was completed by the method of recovery registration without legitimate grounds, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, in determining that the transfer registration of ownership due to the above recovery made in the name of the above non-party 1 is consistent with the substantive legal relationship, the argument in the lawsuit that there was an error in violation of the rules of evidence in the process of fact-finding is nothing more than that of attacking the matters determined additionally by the court below, so it is clear that the court below has no reason

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

Justices Park Jong-dong (Presiding Justice) Kim Sang-ho (Presiding Justice)