Applicable Law of Judicial Declaration of Disappearance for Persons of Double Nationality

As long as a parent who is a national of the Republic of Korea acquired U.S. nationality in accordance with the law of the place of birth and became a dual national, the Korean law will be applied to the legal fiction of the death of an absentee, unless he/she deviates from

Articles 2 and 12 of the Nationality Act, Article 27 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (U.S.A.)

Defendant 1 and six others

Seoul Central District Court (67A9683) of the first instance court (Supreme Court Decision 67Da9683)

The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

원고에게 피고 2 학원은 별지 부동산목록 (8)부동산중 별지도면표시 ㄱ,ㄴ,ㄷ,ㄹ,ㅁ,ㅂ,ㅅ,ㄱ′,ㄱ을 순차 연결한 (가) 부분 3단 5보와 같은 목록 (9)부동산중 같은 도면표시 ㅅ,ㅇ,ㄷ,ㅊ,ㅋ,ㅌ,ㅍ,ㅎ,ㄱ′,ㅅ을 순차 연결한 (나) 부분 155평을 각 분할하여 이에 관한 1964.12.1. 서울민사지방법원 서대문등기소 접수 제20898호로서 경료된 1964.1.24. 조직변경을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를 이행하고, 위 각 부분에 관한 1963.4.24. 위 등기소 접수 제16928호로서 경료된 1963.4.17. 매매를 원인으로한 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를, 피고 3 학원은 같은 목록 (1)(2)부동산에 관하여 1966.7.11. 같은등기소 접수 제20995호로서 경료된 1966.6.20. 기부를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기와 같은 목록 (3)부동산에 관하여 1966.2.9. 같은 등기소 접수 제3074호로서 경료된 1966.1.10. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를, 피고 1은 같은목록 (1) (2)부동산에 관하여 1963.5.20. 같은 등기소 접수 제21594호로서 경료된 1963.5.10. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를, 피고 4는 같은목록 (4)부동산에 관하여 1966.4.18. 같은 등기소 접수 제10286호로서 경료된 1966.3.10. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를, 피고 5는 같은 목록(5)부동산에 관하여 1966.4.18. 같은 등기소 접수 제10284호로서 경료된 1966.3.10. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를, 피고 6은 같은 목록 (6)부동산에 관하여 1966.4.18. 같은등기소 접수 제10283호로서 경료된 1966.3.10. 매매를 원인으로한 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를, 피고 7은 같은 목록(7)부동산에 관하여 1966.4.15. 같은 등기소 접수 제10205호로서 경료된 1966.3.10. 매매를 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기의 말소등기절차를 각 이행하라는 판결

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The reasons why the Defendants are to be a party member of the main defense are the same as the entry in the original judgment, and thus, they are cited in accordance with Article 390 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the merits

Since there is no dispute over the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Defendants, such as the entries in the purport of the claim as to the land stated in the attached list, the above defendants' registration is presumed to be legitimate. According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 10, and Nos. 18, the above defendants' registration shall be deemed to be legitimate. According to the evidence No. 1 to No. 18, the registration of the above defendants' registration is recognized as follows: the non-party 1 purchased from the non-party 2 on February 5, 1950 and the non-party 1 purchased from the non-party 2 on March 8, 1950, the non-party 1 purchased the non-party 4-1 forest land no. 7 forest land no. 3 forest land no. 4-3 forest land no. 8 forest land at the same place as the original non-party 3 owned on Aug. 8, 1940; the registration of the non-party 4-1 forest land is divided into the same land category No. 4 forest land of the above.

The plaintiff asserted that the above 4-1 forest land was owned by the non-party 1, and that the non-party 5, the Republic of Korea, died on March 27, 1954 and died on September 3, 1955, the plaintiff succeeded to the property of the non-party 5, who was the non-party 5, and that the registration of the non-party 4 was inherited by the non-party 5, and that the registration of the non-party 4 should be cancelled on the basis of the registration of the cause invalidation, and that the above registration of the defendants, which was made on the basis of the registration of the invalidation

According to Gap evidence Nos. 5 (Delivery of Documents), 6 (Verification), 7 (Report of Birth), 10-1, 11 (Report of Birth), 15 and 17 (Report of Death), the non-party 1 is a citizen of the Republic of Korea on June 5, 1868, and the non-party 1 was declared missing on May 1905, and the non-party 1 was declared missing on the non-party 6's birth report Nos. 97 (Report of Birth) and the non-party 1 was declared missing on March 27, 195, and the non-party 5's birth report was filed on the non-party 1 to the non-party 6's birth report on the non-party 1 to the non-party 97's birth report on the non-party 1 to the non-party 5's birth report on the non-party 1 to the non-party 97's birth report on the non-party 1 to the non-party 197.

Thus, according to the above facts of recognition, even if the non-party 1 couple holds permanent residence in the United States of America, it is obvious that the non-party 5 is a national of the Republic of Korea even though he has a permanent residence in the Republic of Korea, and even if the non-party 5 acquired the U.S. nationality in accordance with the law of the place of birth, the plaintiff or non-party 5 is in the position of the non-party 2. Thus, in this case where the non-party 5 cannot find a trace of the non-party 5 acquisition of nationality in the case of the non-party 2, it is obvious that the non-party 5 would be in accordance with the law of the Republic of Korea as a national of the Republic of Korea as to the legal fiction of the non-party 5's death, and therefore, the plaintiff became the inheritor of the non-party 5 from that time.

The Defendants asserted that the adjudication of adjudication of disappearance is null and void, since Nonparty 7 did not request adjudication again at the time of application for adjudication of disappearance. However, inasmuch as it cannot be recognized that the adjudication was revoked by appeal or retrial for the same reason as the Defendants asserted, the Defendants’ assertion is without legal grounds, and thus, cannot be accepted.

Next, with respect to the registration of transfer of ownership by Nonparty 4, it is clear that Nonparty 1, the owner of Nonparty 1 died and Nonparty 5, the heir of the above real estate, and Nonparty 8’s testimony (except for the portion rejected in the front and rear), the purport of the party’s pleading and the above fact-finding were purchased by Nonparty 5, the deceased Nonparty 1 had Nonparty 5, who was returning to Korea, purchase the above 4-1 forest land. The transfer registration was requested to Nonparty 8 for the registration of transfer of ownership by Nonparty 4 on the ground that Nonparty 1 did not have an address in the Republic of Korea. Nonparty 4 applied for the registration of transfer of ownership based on Nonparty 1’s objection to the registration of transfer of ownership by Nonparty 4 on January 19, 1959, where Nonparty 5, the heir of the above real estate, was missing, and Nonparty 1 applied for the registration of transfer of ownership by Nonparty 5, the registration of transfer of ownership due to Nonparty 1’s objection to the registration of transfer of ownership due to Nonparty 1’s claim for sale of ownership.

The Defendants asserted that Nonparty 4 sold the above forest land to Nonparty 4 on May 1950 (the above part of Nonparty 4) and that the ownership transfer registration could not be obtained by means of overseas residence. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the above assertion should be dismissed by means of an attack period. However, considering all the circumstances revealed in the parties’ arguments, the above assertion cannot be acknowledged as being too late due to intention or gross negligence. Examining the Defendant’s above assertion, the above assertion is without merit, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is not acceptable, and it is difficult to find that Nonparty 4 purchased the above land by Nonparty 5’s testimony and testimony of the above witness 9 and 10, and the fact that Nonparty 4 purchased the above land by means of Nonparty 4’s request by Nonparty 5 (the above part of Nonparty 4’s judgment) and Nonparty 5’s allegation that the above change in the ownership transfer registration was invalid after Nonparty 4’s entry in the lower court’s judgment on the land was invalid by Nonparty 1’s lack of evidence in light of the following facts.

As seen earlier, Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 5 are citizens of the Republic of Korea and there is no need to determine further, as the assertion under the Foreign Land Act premised on the premise that the Plaintiff is a foreigner with U.S. nationality.

The Defendants asserted that Nonparty 4 did not acquire the above forest land by Nonparty 5’s request for the interruption of prescription on May 1950. Since Nonparty 1 and the Defendants succeeded to possession on May 1970 after Nonparty 4’s request for the above Kim Jong-hwan who managed the above land at the time of June 30, 1953, there is no evidence to acknowledge that Nonparty 4 occupied the above forest on May 30, 1975, and that the period of extinctive prescription was completed by Nonparty 4’s request for the above act of possession. Since Nonparty 4 did not acquire the above forest land at the time of Nonparty 5’s request by Nonparty 4, the above act of possession, which would have become invalid by Nonparty 8’s request, and thus, Nonparty 4, who acquired the right of possession under the law, did not directly acquire the above land from Nonparty 8’s heir’s right of possession or other right of possession, and thus, Nonparty 5 did not assert that the above right of possession was terminated by Nonparty 8’s request for the interruption of prescription.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified and it is reasonable to accept the plaintiff's claim. Thus, the court below's judgment with the same conclusion is just. Thus, the defendant's appeal is dismissed without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendants. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List of Real Estate]

Judges Mahman (Presiding Judge) Macul