The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court, as to the ground of appeal No. 1, acknowledged facts as indicated in its reasoning, rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff did not have any entity as a legal entity or that the Plaintiff ceased to exist after the lapse of fifty years from August 30, 1985

In light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal or by misapprehending the rules of evidence.

2. On the third ground of appeal, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense of prescriptive acquisition on the ground that the Defendant did not have occupied the original land of this case merely because the registration for the recovery of destruction was completed under the name of the Defendant, and that there is insufficient evidence to recognize otherwise that the Defendant occupied the original land of this case.

In light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the acquisition of prescription by possession, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

A. The lower court determined that it is difficult to recognize that the Defendant purchased the original land of this case from the Plaintiff solely on the basis of the land ownership certificate prepared by the head of AT or the entry of the farmland ledger asserted by the Defendant, based on its stated reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the probative value of official documents, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In order for the Plaintiff to seek cancellation of the ownership transfer registration completed under the name of the Defendant against the Defendant, the Plaintiff must first actively assert and prove that the Plaintiff had the title to file a claim for cancellation. If it is not recognized that the Plaintiff had such title, then, the name of the Defendant even if not.