beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. Each real estate listed in the separate sheet that is not registered as the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) is originally owned by G. G dies on March 12, 200, and the Plaintiffs, who are the wife H and G’s children, inherited each of the instant lands. On June 1, 2002, H died on June 1, 2002, and eventually, the Plaintiffs owned each of the instant lands as one-six shares, and therefore, it is confirmed that the ownership of each of the instant lands in an unregistered state was against the Plaintiffs as above.
B. We examine the judgment, the Cadastral Act, its Enforcement Decree, and its subsequent intellectual laws and regulations, which were enforced from December 1, 1950, have no different provisions regarding the restoration of the destroyed cadastral record. However, Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which was enforced on December 31, 1975, was based on Article 13, and only when the Cadastral Act was enforced on December 31, 1975, and when restoring the cadastral record, the competent authority shall register the restoration of the matters indicated in the land based on the data deemed most consistent with the cadastral record as at the time of the destruction, and the matters concerning the owner shall not be registered for restoration without the real estate register or final judgment. Article 6 of the Addenda provides that “The matters on the indication of land in the cadastral record as at the time of enforcement of this Decree shall be restored and the owner shall be subject to the provisions of the above Article 10, which were not restored (including the case where the competent authority arbitrarily marks the owner). Thus, the owner’s arbitrary taxation without any legal basis for the restoration without any convenience of the competent authority.
However, considering the contents of the above provisions, the presumption of rights cannot be recognized in such a statement.
(Supreme Court Decision 2005Da22527 Decided July 14, 2005, including Supreme Court Decision 2005Da22527 Decided July 14, 200). There is no dispute, and Article 3 to 1.