A. Whether registration of ownership preservation by a title holder of ownership transfer on the land cadastre at the time of March 20, 193 (affirmative)

B. Whether a “judgment proving ownership” under Article 130 subparag. 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act includes a protocol of filing a lawsuit or telephone settlement between a seller and a buyer, stating that the relevant land is owned by the seller who is the applicant for registration (negative)

A. According to Article 2 of the Cadastral Rule applied mutatis mutandis by the Rules on the Forestry Ledger, which was enforced on March 20, 1933, the transfer of land ownership cannot be registered on the land cadastre without a notice by a registry official. However, the same shall not apply to cases where ownership is transferred due to the disapproval, exchange, transfer, or expropriation of unregistered land, or the transfer of ownership into a state-owned land. In such a case, the “state” which manages the land cadastre can be confirmed by itself, so that a registry official can register the transfer of ownership in the ledger even without notice. In light of the provisions and purport of Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act and Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act and Article 130 of the said Rules, it is reasonable to interpret that “a person who proves that he or the decedent is the owner of the land cadastre or the forest register by a certified copy of the land cadastre or the forest register” as included in the registration of ownership in the above land cadastre regulations.

B. The "judgment" stipulated in Article 130 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act is also included in the lawsuit telephone, however, in the case where the buyer seeks the registration of transfer of land ownership against the seller, the seller takes the procedure for the registration of transfer of land ownership based on the sale and purchase to the buyer and confirms that the land concerned is owned by the seller, it is nothing more than the fact that the seller himself/herself applies for the registration of preservation of the seller's name, and it cannot be said that the applicant for registration who submits the above protocol of settlement is "the person who proves his/her ownership by the judgment."

(a) Article 130 subparag. 1 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 2 of the former Land cadastre Regulation (Presidential Decree No. 45), Article 2 of the former Rules on the Registration of Real Estate (Presidential Decree No. 113)

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

Incheon District Court Order 88Ra267 dated April 22, 1989

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds for reappeal.

On the first ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below determined as follows: (a) the forest of this case was entered as the name of "the State" on April 10, 1918, which was entered as the name of "the State" on March 20, 193, and the ownership transfer was entered as the name of "the State" on March 20, 193, and that the forest of this case was entered as the owner of the forest of this case; and (b) the above Kim Il-il et al. entered as the ownership transfer from "the State" on the forest of this case in the forest of this case, the current civil law, which takes the form principle as to real estate changes, cannot be deemed as the owner of the forest of this case, and even if they were transferred ownership by legal acts at the time of the enforcement of the former Civil Act, on the ground that the above Kim Il-il et al. was already invalidated pursuant to Article 10(1)

However, according to Article 2 of the Cadastral Rule, which is applied mutatis mutandis by the Rules of the Forestry Ledger, which was enforced on March 20, 1933, the transfer of ownership cannot be registered on the land cadastre without a notice of the registration officer's transfer, but the same shall not apply to cases where the ownership is transferred due to the disapproval, exchange, transfer, or expropriation of unregistered land, or where the ownership is State-owned land. In such a case, the "State" which manages the land cadastre can confirm the transfer of ownership by itself, so that the transfer of ownership can be registered on the register even without the notice of the registration officer's transfer of ownership (the similar provision is also stipulated in Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Rule, which was wholly amended by Act No. 2801 of Dec. 31, 1975).

In light of the contents and purport of the above provisions of the land cadastre rules as mentioned in Article 130(b) of the Act, the term "person who proves that he is registered as the owner of the land cadastre or forest land cadastre by himself or by a certified copy of the land ledger or a certified copy of the forest land cadastre of an inheritee" under subparagraph 1 of the above provision means not only the person registered as the owner of the above book but also the person whose ownership is registered as transfer by the land cadastre rules as mentioned above.

Therefore, the court below did not regard a certified copy of the forestry register of this case as a certified copy of the above Kim Il-il as the forestry register under Article 130 subparagraph 1 of the Act necessary for the application for preservation registration in the name of the heir such as the above Kim Il-il, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding

With respect to the second ground:

The judgment stipulated in Item 2 of Article 130 of the Act shall include the protocol of protocol prior to filing a lawsuit, but in case where the buyer seeks a registration of transfer of land ownership against the seller, the seller takes the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the sale and purchase and confirms that the land is owned by the seller, the protocol of protocol prior to filing a lawsuit shall not be deemed to be a "person who proves his own ownership by the judgment" because it is nothing more than that of the seller's confirmation if the seller applies for the registration of preservation of the name of the seller.

Therefore, the court below's decision that the Re-Appellant's 38 persons such as the above Kim Jong-si's property heir, etc. 11 (the transferor's 11) Kim Jong-sung (the transferor's 11) was justified in holding that the Re-Appellant's transfer registration procedure for ownership transfer based on each legal share in inheritance and confirmed that the forest land in this case is owned by the transferor in subrogation of the transferor, the Re-Appellant's claim for preservation registration does not constitute the case where the Re-Appellant's ownership is proved by the judgment under Article 130 subparagraph 2 of the Act.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)