2005da2440 Cancellation of ownership transfer registration.

**H******: Cronology

Gangwon******-**

Representative***

Law Firm**

Attorney Lee Jong-soo et al.

Attorney Kim*, Lee**

Kim** (*******************

*****7*5****

Attorney Kim*

April 18, 2007

May 16, 2007

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant is against the plaintiff*** in the Republic of Korea** in the Republic of Korea* in the Republic of Korea* in the Republic of Korea* in the Republic of Korea** in the Chuncheon District Court** in the Republic of Korea on February 28, 1986** in the Republic of Korea** in the Republic of Korea** in the Republic of Korea on February 28, 1986.**

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or each entry of Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 6, Gap evidence 3-1 through 6, Gap evidence 4, Eul evidence 5-1, Eul evidence 12, Eul evidence 1-1, 2, Eul evidence 3-1, 2-2, Eul evidence 4-1 through 3, Eul evidence 5-2 through 4, Eul evidence 5-6 through 12 (including each number), and Eul evidence 5-2 through 12, and all images and arguments of Gap evidence 5-2 through 7, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

A. The plaintiff is a member of **** C 28 years old Kim** 4 years old Kim** 4 years old Kim** adult male among descendants.

for the purpose of the above Kim ** for the purpose of promoting friendship between the deceased, deceased, and descendants.

The defendant is a clan, Kim** the 11th descendant.

(b) Gangwon-do** * Gun* Myeon* Risan* 350,00 forest * 350,000 forest * 40,000 forest 30,000 forest 60,000

On May 10, 1954, the name of the clan ** on May 10, 1954 with respect to the forest before the division of the case

The transfer registration of ownership was completed due to his recovery. The forest land before the division of this case was completed on January 1, 1974

4. That: (1) ①*** in the army* in the region* in the region* in the region* in the region* in the region of the country**- in the region of the country*- in the region of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country of the country

C) (2) 38-2 Road 5-2, 5-2, 3. 38-3, 16-3, 900, 1

Busan 38-4 3rd-4 Road 3rd-4, 5th-5 forest land 3th-5 forest land of the same Ri, respectively;

The forest land in Busan 38-3 is converted to 16,760mi (hereinafter referred to as the "forest land in this case") on September 1, 1978.

Busan-registered.

C. On February 28, 1986, the forest land of this case is not restored by the owner in the water dives area under the name of the defendant.

Special Act on Special Measures for Restoration, Registration, Preservation, etc. of Land (No. 3627, hereinafter referred to as "special Act")

The registration of preservation of ownership has been completed under the separate measure Act, and the forest and field of this case 38-1; and

* As regards the woodland 38-5 forest land in Ri, Kim * under the Act on Special Measures on October 31, 1991, Kim* Red* as spouse*

Each registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the name of the Corporation.

D. Among the forests and fields divided from the forests and fields before the division of this case, the Defendant’s 9 comparison land in the forest of this case

Kim** and his spouse************** the defendant's family father Kim* and defendant's father Kim** and his spouse

*** There is cream and Kim * and his spouse* * cream in 38-1 forest land of this case.

There are those graves of the Plaintiff and Kim*, Kim Jong-tae, Cho Jong-tae, * The plaintiff's assertion 2.

The forest land before the division of this case is owned by the plaintiff clan and has title trust to Kim**, but the defendant, who is the 15th degree of Kim**, completed the registration of preservation of ownership of the forest land of this case on the basis of false letter of guarantee and confirmation at the time of the implementation of special measures, is null and void.

A. Determination as to the assertion on invalidity of cause

A registration completed under the Act on Special Measures is presumed to be consistent with the substantive legal relationship. The presumption power should be presumed to be broken when it has been proven to be true that the substantial contents of the changes in rights in the letter of guarantee or written confirmation under the Act on Special Measures are inconsistent with the substantive legal relationship. However, even if a witness prepared and issued a guarantee certificate stating that the applicant for issuance of a guarantee certificate without knowing the changes in rights are guaranteed by the applicant for the issuance of a certificate without knowing the changes in rights, it cannot be said that the registration alone lacks the legitimate presumption power of the registration. ② In addition, even if a person who completed the registration under the Act on Special Measures claims that he/she acquired a right in accordance with the guarantee certificate or written confirmation, it is apparent that the registration under the Act on Special Measures cannot be completed under the Act on Special Measures, unless there are special circumstances, such as where it is apparent that the content of the assertion is incomplete, it cannot be deemed that the presumption power of registration completed under the Act on Special Measures has been broken, and it shall not be presumed to have been proven to have been 1810 or 101.

Therefore, as to the instant case, Gap's 4, Eul's 5-1, Eul's 5-2, Eul's 13-2, Eul's 17-2, Eul's 21-2, Eul's 23- testimony, Eul's **'s witness Kim * part of the testimony ** Eul's * *********'s own building of the plaintiff's 1-2's 9-1's 3-1's 9's 9's 9's 1's 9'''''''''''''''''''' 14'''''''''''''' and 14'''''''''''''''''''' 14'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' 14'''the 9-1''the 1''''the 3-1''''''''the 1''''''''5''''''''''''2'''''''.

According to the above facts, the defendant acquired the right to the forest of this case by reasons different from those stated in a letter of guarantee and a written confirmation, but such circumstance alone alone cannot be said to undermine the presumption of preservation of ownership, and there is no evidence to prove that there is a reason to reverse the presumption otherwise. (b) The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Where a registration for preservation of ownership overlaps with another registration titleholder for the same real estate, the registration made later shall be deemed null and void unless the registration made earlier is null and void, and this shall also apply to the registration for transfer of ownership, the registration made earlier, which is destroyed and void. Meanwhile, where a registration for the land before subdivision is registered later as a cadastral record for a part of the land with the same lot number after subdivision, the cadastral revision, which indicates only a part of the original land before and after the registration for correction, shall not be permitted because the identity of the land before and after the registration for correction is not recognized. However, even in such a case, if a registration for preservation of ownership is not made separately for the same real estate, or there is no interested person who is likely to cause unexpected damage by deeming it as the form of a registration for correction, the registry after the registration for correction shall be deemed to have the effect as a registration for a part of the land after subdivision (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da51561, Feb. 25, 1997).

As seen earlier, the registration of ownership preservation of the forest of this case has been completed with respect to the forest of this case, including the forest of this case, after the completion of the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Kim*, the forest of this case, including the forest of this case, was divided into 38-1 forest of this case and 38-5 forest of this case, and the fact that 1 to 7 forest of this case among the forest of this case was divided into 38-1 forest of this case on November 4, 1974, and 31 to 38-5 forest of this case as seen above. According to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6-2, 3, 10-2, 12-4, and 12-4, the registration of ownership transfer of the forest of this case was completed under the name of 38-1 forest of this case and 38-1 forest of this case shall not be deemed to have been completed with respect to the registration of the forest of this case, and the forest of this case shall not be registered with respect to 38-1 forest of the forest of this case.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

J**