Where a clan has completed registration of preservation of ownership by trusting the ownership of real estate to another person after a clan was entrusted with real estate owned by the clan under his/her personal name, whether the situation titleholder or his/her heir may claim ownership against a new title trustee (negative)

In the event that real estate owned by a clan is entrusted in the name of an individual, the assessment titleholder shall acquire the ownership of the said real estate from its original, creative, or otherwise, but when the clan has entrusted the ownership of the real estate to another person thereafter and completed registration of preservation of ownership, the assessment titleholder or his/her heir shall not be deemed to have asserted the ownership of the new title trustee.

[title trust] Article 186 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Lee Jae-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and one other, Defendants (Attorneys Kim Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

A clans of the Masan Scam Scam for a private person;

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na19489 delivered on April 10, 1992

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the defendant's 64,860 square meters of woodland 64,860 square meters prior to the division ( Address 1 omitted) was owned by the defendant's defendant defendant's defendant defendant's defendant defendant's defendant defendant's clan (hereinafter the defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's title was entrusted to the defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's defendant's right to ownership transfer of the above land ( Address 2 omitted) after the division of this case's land, and the court below's decision that the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's ownership transfer of this case's land is not erroneous in the facts.

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

2. In the event that real estate owned by a clan is entrusted in the name of an individual and circumstances, the assessment titleholder shall acquire the ownership of the said real estate in the original, creative, or otherwise (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da3472 delivered on June 23, 1992). However, in the event that a clan has completed registration of preservation of ownership by trusting the ownership of the said real estate to another person thereafter, the assessment titleholder or his heir may not claim ownership against a new title trustee.

According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, the plaintiff, the heir of the above non-party, is deemed not to have completed the registration of ownership preservation as a new title trustee of the land of this case or to have not asserted the ownership of the land of this case against the defendants who had completed the registration of ownership transfer from the new title trustee of the land of this case. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to this purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the validity of the forest situation like the theory of lawsuit.

Since registration of preservation of ownership in Defendant 1, which was made under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Real Estate, has been completed by a false letter of guarantee, etc., the court below held that the land in this case was unlawful by the presumption of registration of preservation of ownership, notwithstanding the above presumption of ownership, but the court below held that the land in this case was owned by the intervenor in this case by the presumption of ownership preservation. However, the court below did not hold that the plaintiff could not assert ownership against Defendant 1 for the reasons as seen above, such as the theory of lawsuit, the registration of preservation of ownership in Defendant 1 was presumed to have presumed, or that it was owned by a clan

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)