No registration of the Republic of Korea shall be deemed null and void.

The registration of the Republic of Korea shall be presumed to be a valid registration and shall not be deemed to be a registration for invalidation of cause because there is no reason to view it to be based on the presumption power

Article 187 of the Civil Act

Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan179570

EO

Republic of Korea and 1

December 24, 2013

February 11, 2014

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

With respect to the Plaintiff’s share of 11/52 o-dong 719-12 Bo-dong 115.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), the Defendant Republic of Korea implements the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant registration”) completed on January 13, 1975 by the Seoul Western District Court o-dong 588, which was completed on January 13, 197, and the Seoul Western District Court o-dong 719-12 o-dong 115.4 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6, Eul evidence 15, Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including additional numbers).

A. On January 20, 1913, the Land Survey Division of the Gyeonggi-do o-do 333, o-do o-do 333, 585 (hereinafter referred to as the “previous land”) entered the previous land into the land survey division on January 20, 1913 (two years, o-do).

B. The previous land was partitioned on January 17, 1961 into 333-2 o, 344 o, 333-2, and 241 o, o, 333-2, and 241 o was divided on August 12, 1963, and 333-16 o, 333-16 o, and 3333-23 o, 142, 142, and 333-19 o, o, 36 o, o, 36 o, o, 1970 o, o, o, 333-27 o, o, o, 36 o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o, o.

C. The old land cadastre for the previous land (actually is the old land cadastre for the same 333-1 land divided from the previous land) is indicated as the ownership of the previous land was transferred to the State on September 1, 194 (Fire 19 years).

D. On January 13, 1975, Defendant Republic of Korea completed the preservation registration of the instant land before replotting, and thereafter, the registration of the instant transfer was completed in the name of Defendant OOO on May 13, 1997 after the completion of each ownership transfer registration on the land before replotting in the name of Kim Young-si and Gyeong-si.

마. 종전 토지의 사정명의인 이□□은 1942. 3. 19. 사망하여 장남이자 호주상속인인 이△△이 망 이□□의 재산을 단독 상속 받았고, 이△△에 대하여는 실종선고가 되어 1943. 7. 9. 위 실종선고가 확정됨으로써 이△△의 장남인 이■■이 호주상속과 함께 재산상속을 하였으며, 이■■은 2003. 12. 14. 사망하여 처 김■■과 자녀들인 원고, 이AA, 이BB, 이CC, 이DD이 망 이■■의 재산을 공동 상속하였다.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

Since the land of this case was originally divided into the previous land in which the Plaintiff’s prior land was located and substituted, the preservation registration of this case completed in the name of the Defendant Republic of Korea with respect to the land of this case is null and void, and the transfer registration of this case in the name of Defendant OO○, which was based on the land of this case becomes null and void, each of the above registrations must be deleted.

B. Defendant Republic of Korea

The original created by the heir of the deceased who solely inherited the property of the deceased shall be only at the time of inheritance.

Since thisCC, a minor of the age of 17, was appointed as a guardian by this △△△, and the former land was sold to the Defendant Republic of Korea, the acquisition of the ownership of the Defendant Republic of Korea on the instant land divided and substituted by the previous land is valid, the registration of the preservation of the instant land in the name of the Defendant Republic of Korea is valid as a registration consistent with the substantive relationship.

C. Defendant OO○○

Defendant ○○ purchased the land before replotting from the order of the former owner on April 6, 1997, and completed the registration of the transfer of this case on May 13, 1997, as well as from the lawful owner who purchased the land before replotting, even if not, as seen above, he occupied the land before replotting or the land of this case in good faith for at least 10 years with the intention to own the land before replotting in good faith after purchase and completion of the registration of the transfer of this case. Thus, the registration of the transfer of this case in the name of Defendant Ori-ri shall be valid as registration in accordance with the substantive relationship.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles

(1) A person registered in the Land Survey Book as an owner is presumed to have become final and conclusive in view of the circumstances, barring any counter-proof, such as the change in the content of the situation by the adjudication, etc., and the presumption of preservation of ownership is broken if a person other than the title holder of the preservation registration finds that the relevant land was the assessment of the relevant land. However, in order to seek cancellation of registration of ownership in another person’s name, which was completed as part of the exercise of the right to claim exclusion from interference with real rights over the ownership of real estate, he/she first proves that he/she has the title to claim cancellation. If it is not recognized that there is such title, even if registration of registration of ownership in another person’s name is invalid, a claim may not be accepted even if the title holder or his/her heir has no title to claim cancellation of registration against the title holder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da9384, May 13, 2011).

(2) On the other hand, even if the name is indicated in the column of the owner on the old land cadastre restored before the amendment of the Cadastral Act on December 31, 1975, the presumption of right cannot be acknowledged. Since the repayment ledger of distributed farmland or the distribution ledger is a document prepared to state matters necessary for repayment after the completion of the distribution farmland confirmation procedure, the presumption of the alteration of right cannot be acknowledged for the stated facts. However, there is no limitation that the entries in the former land cadastre or the distribution related documents should be considered as the basis for fact-finding as to the alteration of right by taking into account other circumstances (see the above Supreme Court Decision).

(b) Fact of recognition;

According to the above evidence, the following facts are acknowledged.

(1) On September 1, 194, 194, which was after the date of the death of this account ( March 19, 1942), the old land cadastre, which was assessed on January 20, 1913 by this account, entered that the owner of the previous land was changed from this account to the State (State).

(2) On December 30, 1943, as the first certified copy of this △△△△, the first certified copy of this △△△△△ was the death of thisCC, stating that Doddd on May 14, 1927, he was the minor at the time, who was towing after the court of this △△△△△△, and was on April 7, 194.

(3) a statement of purchase of land in 1944 and 1945, kept by the Korean Railroad;

A. On August 5, 1944, 194, the evidence 1 of this △△△△△△ was purchased from the guardian Bupyeong-A (which appears to have been used at the time this △△△△△ was opened in the name at the time this △△△ was opened) of the heir of this △△△△ on August 5, 194 (Fire 19 years), and notified the state-owned land on September 194 (Fire 19 years), and paid the purchase price on October 7, 194, and the date of this △△△△△△△△△ on August 5, 194 (the date this △△△△ was used at the time this △△ was opened) and the date of payment on the purchase price ( October 7, 194) and on October 7, 194, respectively, signed and sealed by the official.

(c) The authenticity of a statement of purchase and the presumption of land cadastre of the Gu;

(1) In light of the form, purport, and content of the previous document, the statement of purchase of the land (No. 1) was prepared from 1944 to 194 by the public officials belonging to the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, and the public officials belonging to the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of the Republic of Korea of 1945. Accordingly, the establishment of the original statement of purchase of the previous land is presumed to be presumed. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that the purchase and purchase of the previous land was made for convenience of business after the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the year of the death.

(2) In addition, Article 2 of the former Land Conservation Rule (Ordinance No. 45, Apr. 25, 1914) provides that the transfer of ownership can not be registered on the land cadastre without a public official’s notice. However, the same shall not apply in cases where ownership is transferred due to the non-refluence, exchange, transfer, or expropriation of unregistered land, or where unregistered land is a state-owned land. Thus, if the State managing the land cadastre can confirm the transfer of ownership by itself, it is possible to register the transfer of ownership in the register even without a public official’s notice (see Supreme Court Order 89Ma389, Mar. 20, 190). Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the transfer of ownership to the State was made in violation of the former Land Conservation Rule. Moreover, even if the State entered in the old land cadastre as the owner, the record itself cannot be acknowledged, but it can be sufficiently recognized that the State acquired the ownership of the previous land from the △△△△△ Party.

(d)registration consistent with substantive relations.

(1) According to the above facts, since the state has lawfully acquired the ownership of the previous land in around 194, the preservation registration of this case in the name of the defendant Republic of Korea does not accurately reflect the above purchase process. However, since the defendant's ownership of the land divided from the previous land is expressed in the ownership of the Republic of Korea for the land before replotting, it shall be deemed valid as a registration consistent with the substantive relations. Accordingly, this decision of △△△ as the plaintiff's fleet, lost the ownership of the previous land.

(2) 위와 같이 피고 대한민국 명의의 이 사건 보존등기가 실체관계에 부합하는 등기로서 유효하고, 환지 전 토지 또는 이 사건 토지에 관하여 피고 대한민국으로부터 김ㅁㅁ, 정ㅁㅁ를 거쳐 피고 오ㅁㅁ 명의의 이 사건 이전등기가 마쳐져 있으므로, 등기명의자인 피고 오ㅁㅁ은 제3자에 대하여 적법한 등기원인에 의하여 소유권을 취득한 것으로 추정되어 이를 다투는 원고 측에서 무효사유를 주장・입증하여야 하는데(대법원 2013. 1. 10. 선고 2010다75044, 75051 판결 등 참조), 앞서 살펴본 바와 같이 원고의 선대인 이△△이 종전 토지에 대한 소유권을 상실함으로써 원고는 더 이상 망 이□□의 토지사정에 따른 소유를 주장할 수 없고, 달리 피고 오ㅁㅁ 명의의 이 사건 이전 등기가 무효라고 인정할만한 증거가 없으므로, 피고 오ㅁㅁ은 1997. 5. 13.자 매매를 원인으로 하여 환지 전 토지의 소유권을 취득하였다고 할 것이다.

E. Sub-committee

그렇다면 피고 대한민국 명의의 이 사건 보존등기와 이에 터 잡은 피고 오ㅁㅁ 명의의 이 사건 이전등기의 말소를 구하는 원고의 청구원인에 관한 주장은 더 나아가 살펴볼 필요 없이 모두 이유 없다.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed for all reasons.

판사 이QQ