[1] Estimated history of registration of preservation of ownership in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for Restoration and Preservation Registration, etc. of Undeveloped Land in a Diversing Area

[2] The presumption of legality and the meaning of the requirements of residence of the guarantor under the former Act on Special Measures for the Restoration of Undeveloped Land by Owners in Aquatic Uniform Area and Registration for Preservation of Land, etc.

[1] The registration of preservation of ownership under the former Act on Special Measures for Restoration and Preservation of Unclaimed Land owned by Owners in Aquatic Uniform Areas is completed in accordance with lawful procedures as stipulated by the said Act, and is presumed to correspond to the substantive legal relationship. Unless it is proven that a letter of guarantee, which served as the basis for such registration, was forged or falsely prepared, or that it was not a lawful registration due to other reasons, the presumption of registration shall not be reversed.

[2] The meaning of "a person who has been appointed as a guarantor by an administrative agency pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Unclaimed Land in a Diplomatic Area" is presumed to be a legitimate guarantor under the same Act unless there are special circumstances. A person who has resided in the Ri/Dong at least one year at least in the Ri/Dong in the land location and has been residing in the same Ri/Dong for the last ten years" or "a person who has resided in the Ri/Dong at least one year at least in the Ri/Dong in the land location and has been residing in the same Dong for the last five years for the last five years" among the qualification under Article 5 of the same Act is reasonable to interpret that "a person who has resided in the Ri/Dong or Dong in accordance with each requirement as a person who has resided in the land location or Dong for the last five years." It does not necessarily coincide with the concept of the registered domicile under the Resident Registration Act.

[1] Articles 1 and 4 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Undeveloped Land by Owners in Aquatic Uniform Areas / [2] Articles 1, 4, and 5 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Restoration, Registration, etc. of Undeveloped Land by Owners in Aquatic Uniform Areas

[1] Supreme Court Decision 94Da52096 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 356), Supreme Court Decision 98Da27463 delivered on September 11, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 2504 delivered on October 26, 199), Supreme Court Decision 99Da40036 delivered on October 26, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2421) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da1475 delivered on December 27, 1991 (Gong192, 771), Supreme Court Decision 95Da53935 delivered on June 11, 196 (Gong196Ha, 2126)

Plaintiff 1 and 16 others (Law Firm Multiur Law, Attorneys Hyh Ho- Line et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Kim Containers

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na91829 decided October 16, 2007

The appeal against Plaintiff 1 is dismissed. The part against the Defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The costs of appeal against Plaintiff 1 are assessed against the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Appeal against the plaintiff 1

Since Plaintiff 1 did not make any claim against the Defendant, the Defendant’s appeal against the said Plaintiff is unlawful.

2. Appeal against the plaintiffs other than plaintiff 1

(a) The former Act on Special Measures for Restoration and Registration of Unclaimed Land. It is reasonable that a person who had been living in the Dong 1 and Dong 1 and had been living in the 5-year old Si/Gun 1 and who had been living in the 19-dong 5-dong 1 and had been living in the 19-dong 1-dong 5-dong 1-dong 1-dong 5-dong 1-dong 1-dong 5-dong 1-dong 5-dong 1-dong 5-dong 1-dong 5-dong 1-dong 9-dong 1-dong 1-dong 1-dong 5-dong 1-dong 3-dong 9-dong 1-dong 1-dong 1-dong 5-dong 9-dong 1-dong 7-dong 1-dong 9-dong 1-dong 5-dong 1-year 1-dong 3-year 1-dong 14-dong 1-dong 9-dong 3-dong 1-dong

B. The court below recognized the fact that the defendant, on December 12, 1991 by the evidence Nos. 1 (Guarantee) of Eul company, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land in this case (the land was replaced by 1050-2 of 1050) located in Yacheon-gu, Gyeonggi-do, Yacheon-gu, Yacheon-gu, Yacheon-gu, Yacheon-gu, Yacheon-do, 430-1 (the land was replaced by 1050-2 of Ya-2) pursuant to the Special Provision of the Water Welfare Zone Act, all the addresses of non-party 1, 2, and 3 who are the guarantor were Yacheon-gu, Gyeonggi-do, Yacheon-do, Yacheon-gu, Yacheon-gu, Yacheon-do, and did not reside in the Ri/Dong-dong of the land in this case. As such, the court below held that the transfer of ownership registration

C. However, this judgment of the court below is not acceptable in light of the above legal principles.

According to the records, it is adjacent to the Gyeonggi-do Yacheon-gun, the Gyeonggi-do Yacheon-gun, the location of the land of this case, and the Gyeonggi-do Yacheon-gun Yacheon-gun, the address of the guarantor, and all of the above guarantors are appointed as guarantor by an administrative agency. Thus, even if the address is different from the location of the land, the person who has become guarantor is not a regular resident in the location of the land, and is commissioned as guarantor or the guarantor is living in the neighboring Ri/Dong, or the location of the land of this case is the location of the land of this case. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the guarantor's address is not a legitimate guarantor merely because the fact that the address of the guarantor is different from the location of land.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the defendant's transfer registration of ownership to the land of this case was not legally made in accordance with the procedure provided for in the Act on Special Assistance in the Water and Welfare because the location of the land of this case and the address of the guarantor are different, and thus, the presumption of invalidity is broken and the cause invalidation is invalidated. Such judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of ownership transfer registration under the Act on Special Assistance in the Water and Welfare, or in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal against the plaintiff 1 is dismissed, and the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)