Whether the de facto owner of an undeveloped real estate, which is not provided for in the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer, can register the preservation of ownership based on the confirmation of the competent authority (negative

Before the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate was amended by Act No. 3562 of Apr. 3, 1982, only the person who actually acquired or succeeded unregistered real estate from the owner on the registry, or the person who actually acquired or succeeded the unregistered real estate, may apply for the registration of ownership transfer with a certificate issued in accordance with the prescribed procedure, and a person who actually owns the unregistered real estate can apply for the registration of ownership preservation with a land cadastre attached to the above changed land cadastre, and a person who actually owns the unregistered real estate cannot obtain a certificate issued under the same Act and can not make the registration of ownership preservation with a certificate issued under the same Act, so there is no presumption of right (the case reversing the judgment below which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the claim for registration of ownership preservation and the presumption of presumption of registration of ownership transfer based thereon).

Articles 6(1) and 10(1) of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 3562 of Apr. 3, 1982)

Shin Dong-dong (Attorney Yoon Il-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

New and 7 others (Attorney Noh Jeong-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na39105 delivered on June 14, 1996

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

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. In citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below rejected the plaintiff's application for registration of ownership transfer of this case under the joint names of four persons, such as non-party 1,884 and the defendant 1,884 square meters of 153-16, 7,835 square meters of Choyang-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si-si, Namyang-si-si-si prior to subdivision, based on the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. The court below found that each of the above lands prior to subdivision was divided into the above list 2 through (5) land as shown in the above list as shown in the reasoning of the judgment below, and rejected each of the above allegations that the above entries were invalid by the plaintiff's new real estate ownership registration of each of the above 3094 square-dong and new real estate ownership registration of each of each of the above 15.

2. Where a registration of initial ownership is to be made by opening a real estate to the competent authority under the Registration of Real Estate Act, or where a registration of initial ownership is not in conformity with the actual relationship of rights, on December 31, 197 for the purpose of making it possible to register such real estate under simplified procedures. The Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094) shall apply only to the land registered in the land cadastre or the housing ledger as of the enforcement date of the Act, and is de facto transferred due to legal acts such as sale, donation, exchange, etc. (Articles 2(1) and 3 of the above Act), and the person who was de facto transferred the unregistered real estate from the owner of the above real estate under the name of 6 who was de facto assigned the real estate under the name of 10, may file an application for registration of change with the competent authority, attaching a confirmation document confirming that the real estate is de facto owned by the owner, and the person who was de facto transferred the unregistered real estate under the name of 6, under the name of title verification (hereinafter referred to paragraph (1).).

However, according to the records, after the land cadastre of paragraph (1) of the attached list of the judgment below and the land above before subdivision were entirely destroyed due to an incident of June 25, 1969, the owner of November 1, 1969 was restored to its original state. However, the defendant et al. requested issuance of a confirmation letter that he purchased the above new phenomenon on April 7, 1956 with the title holder on the land cadastre on January 23, 1981 as the non-party new phenomenon, and issued a confirmation document. On April 25, 1981, each registration of preservation of ownership was completed on April 25, 1981. Thus, each of the above registrations of preservation of ownership cannot be granted since only the person who actually takes over or succeeds unregistered real estate from the title holder on the attached list of the court below to apply for registration of preservation of ownership in violation of a confirmation document issued in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

Nevertheless, under the premise that each of the above registrations of ownership preservation is presumed to be a registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, which has been made by the lawful procedures stipulated in the above law, the court below's rejection of each of the above registrations of ownership preservation in this case and the request for cancellation of ownership transfer registration based on the above, on the ground that there is no evidence that the substantive contents of the letter of guarantee or confirmation are false, shall not be deemed to have committed an unlawful act that affected the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)