Whether the previous owner acquires the ownership again in case the land has become the surface of the sea and has re-entered into the land due to the construction of a breakwater by a third party.

When a breakwater has been constructed due to the management of land improvement cooperatives after the owner who had been at the time of leaving the forest and fields has lost ownership on the surface of the sea, it cannot be said that the previous owner of the forest and fields has acquired the ownership again if he leaves the land again.

Maduken

Kim Chang-won

Seoul High Court Decision 64Na398 delivered on January 29, 1965

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff Cho Nam-han's ground of appeal and the second ground of appeal No. 2 of the same Hong Man-man's ground of appeal were examined by evidence, and the court below judged that the previous owner of the land of this case was re-acquisition of the ownership of the land of this case, which was left the above land due to the construction of the breakwater of the above land improvement cooperative, since it was registered under the name of the non-party 124 on 1939, and the transfer of ownership was registered under the name of the non-party 124 on the surface of the non-party 1956, and the owner at the time was lost the ownership of the land of this case until the year 1956, and the breakwater was constructed due to the management of the land improvement cooperative in the 1956, the above land improvement cooperative did not leave the land again, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that the previous owner of the land of this case was re-acquisition the ownership of the land of this case due to the construction of the breakwater of the above land improvement cooperative. It was justifiable and there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles.

The court below held that the non-party Kim Jong-han, who received the registration of ownership transfer based on the registration of Dong-man, was merely a nominal owner on the register and did not obtain an actual ownership, since the plaintiff Hong-man's ground of appeal No. 2 in the judgment of Hong-man on the ground that the plaintiff Hong-man's ground of appeal No. 2 in this case lost ownership of the forest and land at the time when the original judgment became the owner of the forest and land at the surface of the sea, and the ownership of that person was acquired by prescription, cannot be said to be erroneous, and it is obvious on the original judgment that the defendant is not the successor of the non-party Han-man's petroleum species, and therefore, the res

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The appeal is assessed against all participating judges by applying Articles 89 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act with respect to the bearing of litigation costs as per Disposition.

Supreme Court Judge Madung (Presiding Judge) Kim Gung-bun and Madlebro