[1] The other party to the lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration on the ground of completion of prescription (=owner at the time of completion of prescription)

[2] In a case where a real estate owner is missing, whether such real estate can be nationalized by simply undergoing the procedure of public announcement of real estate without real estate under Article 8 of the State Property Act without the procedure of reversion to the State under Articles 1053 through 1058 of the Civil Act (negative)

[1] In order to file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of completion of prescriptive acquisition for land, it shall be filed against the owner at the time of completion

[2] Land considered under a specific person’s name shall be presumed to be owned by a person in charge of assessment or his/her heir, and even if the owner of the land is missing and thus his/her whereabouts are unknown, if it is proved that he/she has died and there is no inheritor, or unless the procedures for reversion of the land to the State pursuant to Articles 1053 through 1058 of the Civil Act are not carried out, such land shall not be immediately owned by the State, and it shall not be owned by the State, unless the procedure for disposal of unregistered real estate pursuant to Article 8 of the State Property Act, unless it is a non-state

[1] Article 245(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 252(2), 1053, and 1058 of the Civil Act; Article 8 of the State Property Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 96Da53420 delivered on April 25, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1585) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da47116 delivered on December 22, 1992 (Gong1993Sang, 550), Supreme Court Decision 94Da39123 delivered on May 9, 1995 (Gong1995Sang, 2081) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 95Da4654, 4661 delivered on May 23, 1997 (Gong197Ha, 1856), Supreme Court Decision 96Da3019 delivered on November 28, 197 (Gong1998Sang, 498Sang, 197)

Plaintiff (Law Firm Gangseo-dong General Law Office, Attorneys Park Jung-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na14558 delivered on October 21, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

In order to file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of prescriptive acquisition, it shall be filed against the owner at the time of completion of prescription (see this Court Decision 96Da53420, Apr. 25, 1997).

In addition, land circumstances in the name of a specific person shall be presumed to be owned by the person in charge of assessment or his/her heir, and even if the owner of the land is missing and it is impossible to ascertain whether he/she is alive or dead, it shall be proved that there is no heir or that there is no heir, or unless the procedures for reversion of the land pursuant to Articles 1053 through 1058 of the Civil Act are not carried out, such land shall not be immediately owned by the State, and it shall not be owned by the State, unless the procedure for disposal of stateless real estate pursuant to Article 8 of the State Property Act is conducted, unless it is a non-state real estate, and it shall not be owned by the State (see this Court Decision 97Da23860, Nov. 28, 1997).

In the same purport, the court below held that the land of this case was unregistered after the non-party 1 was examined on November 10, 1913, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant on October 25, 1995 after the procedure for processing non-resident-owned real estate under Article 8 of the State Property Act, but the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of the defendant. However, the non-party 1 did not prove that the non-party 1 died and his heir did not exist, and the non-party 1 did not belong to the State under Articles 1053 through 1058 of the Civil Act, and therefore, it is proper to determine that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant for the registration of ownership transfer due

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)