The claim of ownership by the person who acquired the property in the name of Japanese owner before August 9, 1945 and the relationship of attribution of such property.

As of August 9, 1945, a property in the name of Japanese owner on the registry shall naturally revert to the Government on September 25, 1945 pursuant to Article 33 of the Military Court Act, but a person who asserts that he has acquired the ownership from a Japanese person on the property before the purchase or for any other reason shall, within the prescribed period, claim the ownership of the property after obtaining the adjudication on the cancellation of the ownership or the adjudication on the cancellation of the ownership by the adjudication on the cancellation of the simplified appeal procedure at the Appellate Committee under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs of April 17, 1948, or after obtaining the confirmation under Articles 120 and 230, or after obtaining the cancellation of the ownership by the final judgment of the court, but the person who has not received the above cancellation of ownership cannot claim the ownership, and the ownership shall fully belong to the State.

Articles 33 and 103 of the Military Affairs Act, Article 1 of the Act on the Confirmation of Cancellation of Reversion in Summary Appeal Procedures (Act No. 120 of April 8, 1950), Article 1 of the Act on the Confirmation of Cancellation of Reversion in Summary Appeal Procedures (Act No. 230 of Dec. 15, 1951)

A. Supreme Court Decision 69Da902 delivered on September 23, 1969, 80Da807 delivered on July 8, 1980, and 80Da2830 delivered on February 9, 1982, delivered on March 25, 1986

Attorney Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na15708 delivered on August 30, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below determined that the land of this case was owned by Japan registered in the name of Japan on the register of August 21, 1945, while the land of this case was contributed to the Daegu Institute of Research, Inc., a foundation incorporated by the plaintiff corporation, but it did not complete the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the above foundation until August 9, 1945, and that part of the land was transferred to the name of the defendant state due to the ownership attribution, but the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant state. However, the plaintiff did not follow the procedure for the cancellation of attribution in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations within the prescribed period for the above land, and that the land of this case was owned by the defendant as the property devolving property and that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have ownership

However, as in this case, the property under the name of Japan as of August 9, 1945 shall naturally revert to the Government on September 25, 1945 pursuant to subparagraph 3 of the military law. However, a person who asserts that he acquired the ownership of the above property from Japan before the above property within the prescribed period shall be entitled to 103 and 17 April 17, 1948; and a person who, as a matter of course, received the adjudication of cancellation of ownership by the Appellate Committee under the Ordinance of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries or by the 120 and 230 of the 197 of the 197 of the 197 of the 20197 of the 207 of the 20197 of the 20197 of the 20197 of the 20197 of the 20197 of the 197 of the 20197 of the 20197 of the 20197 of the 197 of the 208.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The exercise of rights shall be in good faith as prescribed by Article 2 of the Civil Act.

However, as in the theory of theory, the YA, a general foundation of the Plaintiff corporation, obtained the establishment permission from the Government of Japan before August 9, 1945, and the Plaintiff constructed a building which is a school building on the land in this case and used it as the school site. After that, the Plaintiff obtained the alteration approval from the Defendant pursuant to Article 2 of the Addenda to the Private School Act. After that, the Defendant maintained and manages the land in this case as the basic property pursuant to school facilities and equipment standards, etc., and even if the Defendant knew that the land in this case is owned by the Plaintiff, the Minister of literature delivery under the Defendant is not the management authority of the property belonging to the Plaintiff, but the Minister is not the management authority of the school foundation in the establishment and management of the school foundation, and it is not the party to whom the establishment permission or organizational change of the Plaintiff corporation was made. Thus, the nature of the property belonging to the Plaintiff is not changed, and it cannot be said that the Defendant violated the principle of trust and good faith. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is correct.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)