The scope of "where the de facto ownership has changed but the registration has not been completed" under Article 126 (4) of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act.

"Where the de facto ownership has changed but the registration has not been completed" under Article 126 (4) of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act shall include the cases where the ownership has changed in fact due to the transfer in sequence from the owner on the register, rather than the cases where the ownership has changed by the transfer in sequence from the owner on the register.

Article 126 (4) of the Agricultural Community Modernization Promotion Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and two others

Gwangju District Court (82Gahap198)

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

Defendant 1: (a) On October 23, 1975, the Seogju registry office for the land listed in the annexed Table 1, the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer on February 10, 1970; (b) the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer on October 27, 1976, receipt No. 57969, receipt on October 24, 1976; and (c) the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration on April 28, 1978, receipt on the same land; and (d) the Defendant 3 implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration on April 28, 1975, receipt on the same land.

Defendant 3 delivered the above land to the Plaintiff.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in the first and second instances.

After the registration of ownership transfer was made on October 23, 1975 with respect to the land indicated in the separate sheet (the land in this case), the non-party's name was transferred on the receipt (the official column) of the Gwangju District Court Seo-gu District Court on the receipt on October 23, 1975, and the registration of ownership transfer was made on February 10, 197 and then the registration of ownership transfer was made on the order entry in the name of the defendant 2,3. The fact that the defendant 3 occupies the above land is not disputed between the parties, and there was no dispute between the parties, and the facts that the registration of ownership transfer was made on the above land under the name of the non-party No. 1, No. 2, No. 4-1, No. 4-2, and No. 5 (the notification of the result of confirmation of replotting), the owner of the above land in this case was confirmed to have been registered on the non-party No. 1, No. 465 of the previous Farmland Improvement Promotion Act at the time of the non-party 1, 10.

The Plaintiff asserts that the registration of transfer of ownership in Defendant 1’s name on the instant land was null and void since the Nonparty, who was the former registration titleholder, died on April 10, 1965. As such, the registration in the name of health unit and Defendant 1 was made by the determination of a disposition of replotting as seen above. Therefore, it cannot be deemed null and void solely on the fact that the former registration titleholder was made after the death.

In addition, the plaintiff, although he did not purchase the land from the non-party who is the owner on the registry, received a land substitution by deceiving the head of the Gu and obtaining a false certificate, so the above land substitution disposition is null and void, and since the registration of ownership transfer under the invalid land substitution disposition is also null and void pursuant to Article 126 (4) of the Act on the Promotion of Land Modernization in Agricultural and Fishing Villages, if the actual ownership was changed due to the sale, transfer, exchange, division, etc. of the land but the registration of ownership transfer is not completed, it shall be presumed to be the owner on the registry if the fact is confirmed by the certificate of fact of the head of the Si/Gun, and as seen above, the Gwangju City confirmed the actual change in ownership of the land to the defendant 1 by the certificate of fact of the head of the Gu where the land was located, and issued a land substitution disposition. Since the above provision does not necessarily include the case where ownership transfer was not changed directly from the owner on the registry, but also the case where ownership transfer was actually changed by the owner on the registry, it cannot be concluded that the above land substitution disposition is null and void.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim on the land of this case under the premise that the registration of transfer of ownership in the defendant 1 is null and void is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition

Judges Go Jin-An (Presiding Judge)