Cases of denying the presumption of ownership preservation;

The registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the nominal owner and another nominal owner who is considered to be the owner under the Land Survey Decree at a certain time is not recognized as probable.

Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 66Da64,65 delivered on March 22, 1966 (No. 1437; Supreme Court Decision 14 ② civil 144,445 delivered on March 23, 1971 (No. 9526; Supreme Court Decision 19Da18628 delivered on February 26, 197, Supreme Court Decision 73Da1658 delivered on February 26, 197 (No. 10661; Supreme Court Decision 22 ②87 delivered on August 17, 198; Supreme Court Decision 186Da289 delivered on April 26, 197, Supreme Court Decision 2005Da172979 delivered on March 26, 1975 (No. 1965Da2719751 delivered on July 26, 1975).

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 18 others

Government Branch of Seoul District Court (74Gahap266 delivered on July 1, 200)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

2. The receipt and receipt of the list 1. 2. The registration office of the ownership transfer on the real estate 1. 4. 6. 1. 6. 1. 4. 6. 4. 1. 5, the receipt and receipt of the list 1. 4. 4. 1. 4. 6, 1. 4. 5, 1. 4. 1, 96 . 4. 1, 196 . 4. 4. 1, 196 . 4. 1, 196 . 4. 1, 196 . 2. 4. 1, 196 . 4. 2, the receipt and receipt of the list 5. 1, 196 . 4. 1, 196 . 4. 1, 196 . 2, 3. 96 . 4. 1, 1964

Each real estate in the attached list shall be confirmed to be owned by the plaintiff.

Litigation Costs are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. The facts that each registration of ownership preservation and each registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendants, such as the purport of the claim regarding each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “real estate in this case”), has been made in each order, and that each of the above real estate was owned by Nonparty 1, the father of the Plaintiff at the time of the land assessment in accordance with the Land Investigation Ordinance around 1917, there is no dispute between the two parties, and according to each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, the deceased on Nov. 6, 1945, and the plaintiff who is the head of the Dong deceased on Nov. 6, 1945, was the heir of his family and the property, and there is no counter-proof.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the real estate in this case was owned by the deceased non-party 1, who was initially determined as the owner at the time of the original land condition, and even if each registration of preservation was completed under the names of some Defendants, such as the entries in the claim as above, each of the above registrations of preservation of ownership should be deemed as non-existent in this case where the land in this case was deemed to have been owned by a person other than the title holder of the above registration of preservation of ownership, and therefore, unless there is no proof that the registration of preservation is valid in accordance with the substantive rights and obligations, the registration of preservation of ownership in the above defendants' names shall be

2. However, the defendants purchased the above real estate from the non-party 1 to the non-party 2, 3, and 4. The defendant 1 purchased the real estate from the non-party 5, the non-party 1 to the non-party 5, the non-party 1, and the non-party 2, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, and the non-party 1, the non-party 3, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 4, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party 1, the non-party 1, the defendant 2, the non-party 1, the defendant 1, the defendant 1, the

According to the above facts, since the real estate in this case was sold to the non-party 1, the original owner of the real estate in this case, and the ownership was transferred to the deceased non-party 5, even if the non-party 1 died and the plaintiff succeeded to the family head of Dong, it shall be deemed that the ownership of the real estate in this case cannot be acquired due to inheritance. Thus, the plaintiff is not in the position to seek cancellation of the above preservation registration on the basis of the ownership (However, according to the evidence No. 1-6 legal fiction, the non-party 5's children are non-party 10 who is the non-party 10 and are residing in the 38 North Korea, and are still not declared missing, so the legitimate heir of the non-party 5 would be the non-party 10, and the non-party 6 who is the non-party 5's grandchildren, was appointed to the non-party 10's absentee administrator, and it is not clear whether the ownership in this case was transferred to the non-party 1 and the non-party 1.

3. Thus, the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have acquired the ownership of the land of this case, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the registration in the above defendants' name shall be dismissed as it is without merit, without any need to make any judgment as to the remaining defendants' assertion, on the premise that the plaintiff has ownership of the land of this case. Thus, the judgment below which concluded otherwise is unfair, and the defendants' appeal is reasonable, and the judgment below is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition with the plaintiff's appeal

[Attachment List of Real Estate]

Judges Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)