Plaintiff (Attorney Hwang Sang-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

August 30, 2007

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Gadan9178 Delivered on December 22, 2006

1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff and the Defendant respectively.

(1) Claims for compensation: (1) the Defendant shall add 2,000 square meters to the Plaintiff one 2,000 square meters of 365-4 square meters of 27,000,000 and one 27504 square meters of 2,000,000,000 five 2,000 square meters of 27,000,000,000 five 2,000,000,000 five 2,000,000,000 five 2,000,000,000 five 7,000,000,000,000 five 2,000,0000,000 five 2,000,000,000 (10,000,000) and five 7,000 square meters of 2,00,000).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff: The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim against the revocation shall be accepted.

B. Defendant: The part against the Defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the revocation is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The court's explanation on this part is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to 2-6 square meters in the one-dong-dong-dong-dong-si, 2387 square meters in the same Ri-3-2 forest and 810 square meters in the same Ri-2 forest and 24-5 square meters in the same Ri-24-5 square meters in the same Ri

Pursuant to Article 3 of the former Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Records (amended by Presidential Decree No. 694 of Apr. 27, 1962), matters concerning the acquisition, loss, and change of land ownership shall not be registered on the land cadastre without notification of the registry office (when there is any land to be registered on the new land cadastre or forest land cadastre, when the unregistered land has been expropriated, when the unregistered land has been nationalized, and when the unregistered land has been sold, exchanged, or transferred, national land has been sold, exchanged, or transferred), the change of land owner on the old land cadastre cannot be deemed to have been made by notification of the registry official pursuant to this provision, and therefore, if the ownership of a specific person is registered as transferred in the future on the old land cadastre, such specific person shall be deemed to have acquired ownership at that time, barring special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da32900, Jul. 14, 195, etc.).

As to this case, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statement of evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 6 as to each of the above 3, 2-3, 4, and 6, the fact that the ownership of each of the above lands was transferred to the defendant on March 19, 1962, and the registration of ownership preservation was made in the name of the defendant on the same day. Thus, the defendant acquired ownership at that time, and the defendant did not complete the registration of ownership preservation without completing the registration of ownership transfer after he obtained the transfer of each of the above lands from Cho-○, who is the name of the circumstance, and it is difficult to view that the unregistered land was expropriated, or that the unregistered land was nationalized, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

B. Determination as to the 722-5 Masan-ri 891 m2, 722-13 m2, 1275 m2, and 482 m2 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000

In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in evidence Nos. 8, 9, 10, and 2 of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the following facts are as follows: Masan-ri 722-5 and 722-14 and 482 square meters of the same Ri on December 11, 1991; 722-13 and 722-14 and 482 square meters of the same Ri are divided from the land of Masan-ri 722-5 and the farmland registry prepared in the farmland distribution procedure under the former Farmland Reform Act; 722-5 and the farmland registry prepared in the farmland distribution procedure under the former Farmland Reform Act are written in the distribution division column as the "non-party 2" who was the owner of the land above, and the ownership of the land is affixed on the side of the above statement to the non-party 27, who was the successor of the above land. Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the above portion of the land was still subject to the ownership preservation of the non-party 27272.

C. Determination on the remainder of each land

(1) Whether the Plaintiff is an inheritor of the property of Cho Jong-○, a title holder of assessment

In light of the above facts and the purport of the oral argument in Gap's evidence No. 6 and 10, the legal domicile of the non-party 3, who is the plaintiff's father and the plaintiff's father, on the land before the division, is identical to one, and the address of Cho Jong-dong, who is the name of the land investigation injury, is "Seng-dong (Seng-dong (Seng-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong)," and the legal domicile of the non-party 3, who is the plaintiff's father-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-party.

Therefore, each of the above lands shall be deemed to have been acquired in original condition by the Plaintiff’s prior owner of the network, and as long as it is proved that there is a separate purchaser of each of the above lands, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant with respect to each of the above lands shall be reversed. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of each of the above-mentioned registration to the Plaintiff, who is a sole heir of the network ○○○.

(2) Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of the statute of limitations for possession

The defendant asserts that each registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant is in accordance with the substantive relations, since it was a river with a size of 813-1 river of 40 square meters in the Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si

The Defendant’s statement 1, 2, 5, and 1-1 of evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 5, and 1-1 of evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 2 is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant occupied not less than 20 years each of the 365-4 square meters, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, 813-1 river 40 square meters, and 132-2 road No. 132-2, Dong-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si at the time of filing the instant lawsuit. The Defendant’s allegation in this part is without merit without any need to further examine.

(3) Determination on the Defendant’s assertion that it is an annex to the farmland

The Defendant asserts to the effect that, inasmuch as the farmland was purchased from the Government at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act and the farmland was distributed to the distributors by purchasing it with the Government and distributing it to the public without taking a separate distribution procedure, the previous owner of Chocheon-gu and the Plaintiff, who is the former owner of Chocheon-2 river, shall not have ownership in the Plaintiff.

Article 2 (2) of the former Farmland Reform Act provides that "a branch, concentration, waterway, etc. directly required for farmland management shall be attached to the relevant piece of farmland." The determination of whether a piece of farmland distributed together with the farmland of the relevant piece of farmland is attached to the relevant piece of farmland shall be made in substance in consideration of the land category on the public register as at the time the State purchases the farmland, the form of the land, the situation of surrounding land use, the purpose of legislation separately handled the farmland of the relevant piece of farmland. Thus, the determination of whether a piece of land is attached to the farmland of the relevant piece of farmland shall be made in consideration of the following: 5 of evidence Nos. 1, 2-5, 4-4, 5-4, 5-3, 6-1 through 6, 7-1 through 3, 8-1 through 3, 9, 10-1, 10-1, and 2-2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that each piece of land was allocated to the defendant's farmland distribution.

(4) Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff lost ownership

The defendant can recognize the fact that the owner of 788 land prior to the division is stated as the "trust" in the farmland distribution procedure prepared in the farmland distribution procedure under the former Farmland Reform Act. According to the above recognized facts, as long as the truster or his heir has not completed the ownership transfer registration in the future due to the termination of the trust, the trust relationship with respect to each of the above lands still exists. Accordingly, since the ownership of each of the above lands prior to the division is deemed to be a shipbuilding Trust Co., Ltd. or a successor thereof, the plaintiff's assertion against this purport is without merit.

It is not presumed that he had ownership under substantive law because he was written as a prop on the farmland invoice (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da27649 delivered on September 15, 1995, etc.). However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the circumstances such as that ○○, a title holder of each of the above lands, entrusted each of the above lands to a shipbuilding trust company, or that the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of the shipbuilding trust company. Thus, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit without further need.

D. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to perform the Plaintiff with the Government District Court No. 27504, Nov. 2, 1995 with respect to the Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-si-dong-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-Yancheon-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-Yancheoncheon-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-Yan-si-si-si-si-si-si 181,781,781,75,78.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder of the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded. Thus, all appeals of the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges or higher-rankings (Presiding Judge)