Presumption record of transfer registration recorded in the land cadastre at the time of 1947

According to Article 2 of the Land Cadastral Rule, which was enforced on July 3, 1947, the transfer of ownership in this case cannot be registered on the land cadastre before a registration officer's notice is given, except in cases where the transfer of ownership is due to the non-refluence, exchange, transfer, or expropriation of unregistered land or the transfer of unregistered land is nationalized. Thus, in cases where the registration register, etc. of the land in this case was destroyed and the ownership is registered as transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff on the land cadastre, barring any special circumstance, the person who was registered as the owner of the

Article 2 of the former Land cadastre Regulation (Ordinance No. 45), Article 186 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Han-hee, Attorney Han-hee et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 89Na15573 delivered on September 5, 1989

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from Nonparty U.S. on or around March 1947 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership, on the grounds that the official book, etc. was destroyed due to six point-25 incidents and then the owner’s column for land cadastre was not restored, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is seeking confirmation of ownership is not trusted, and that the testimony of the first instance court witness No. 2 (former copy of land cadastre) is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

According to the statement of evidence Nos. 2-2 (former copy of land cadastre) cited by the court below, the original owner of the land of this case, which was restored on February 12, 1958, is the non-party title, and the next owner is the Chinese name.

However, according to Article 2 of the Land Cadastral Rule enforced on March 1947, Article 2 of the National Land Conservation Rule, the transfer of ownership is not possible until the registration officer's notification is made, except for the cases where the state-owned land is non-owned, exchanged, transferred, or unregistered land, and the transfer of ownership is registered as transfer of ownership on the land cadastre, as alleged by the plaintiff, barring any special circumstance, the person who is registered as the owner of the land of this case as at the time the registration register was destroyed or lost at the time of the destruction of the land register cannot be deemed as the plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da377 delivered on May 10, 197, 197). Thus, the court below rejected the above evidence No. 2-2 preparation process of the above evidence No. 2-2, and it is hard to acknowledge it, and it is so decided that the above evidence No. 2-2 was the owner subsequent to Nonparty 1 and whether the plaintiff was the plaintiff or the witness of this case, and it should be considered as the plaintiff's witness's witness's testimony and the remaining evidence No. 2.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)