Presumption of Restoration Registration

In the registration of recovery, only the receipt date and receipt number of the previous registration and the cause date, etc. are indicated, and it cannot be said that there is no legal presumption of right in the registration of recovery.

Article 81 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da1485 decided Nov. 28, 1978; 78Da1238 decided Dec. 26, 1978; 79Da1550 decided Nov. 13, 1979

Maap-pap

Republic of Korea and four others

Seongbuk-do Branch of the Seoul District Court (77Gahap816)

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

As to the real estate listed in (2) of the attached Table No. 10952 on May 19, 1953, the registration of transfer of ownership was made on November 25, 1946 by the receipt date of the support date of the Seoul District Court for Seongbuk North Korea, the registration of transfer of ownership was made on November 25, 1946 by the receipt date of the support date of the Seoul District Court for the real estate listed in (3) of the same Schedule, the registration of transfer of ownership was made on February 5, 1950 by the receipt date of the same support date, the registration date of transfer of ownership was made on February 5, 1950 for the real estate listed in (4) and (6) of the same Schedule, and the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer was made on June 28, 1953 by the recipient number and the sale date, and each procedure of cancellation of ownership transfer was made on June 28, 1953.

The defendant Republic of Korea ruled that the plaintiff shall implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of termination of the trust on the main farb service date with respect to the real estate described in paragraphs (1) through (6).

The grounds for the judgment of the party members on the instant case are the same as that of the original judgment except for the addition of the following parts, and therefore, they shall be quoted in accordance with Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff’s legal representative, after the Sea of August 15, 198, asserted that all the properties owned by the king were disposed of by the U.S. military authorities after the Sea of the Republic of Korea, and that the Defendant’s purchase of the properties listed in the [Attachment (2) of the real estate in this case as of November 25, 1946, prior to the establishment of the Government of the Republic of Korea, or that the sale of the properties listed in (4), (5), and (6) to the Non-party to the deceased Lee Jong-il as of July 27, 1948 was null and void, but there is no ground to deem that all the properties owned by the king Minister were disposed of by the U.S. military authorities, and therefore, no property disposition against this was effective.

The plaintiff's attorney again asserts that the registration of recovery in the name of the defendants with respect to the above real estate stated in (2) through (6) is invalid in light of Articles 70 and 71 (1) of the Decree on the Registration of Chosun Real Estate at the time, since the date of receipt, receipt number, and cause date of the previous registration is not clear, it cannot be said that there is no presumption of legitimate acquisition of right in the above registration on the restoration registration (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da1238 delivered on December 26, 1978).

Therefore, the original judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 89 and 95 of the same Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges Kim Cal-sik (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sik