The validity of land expropriation made by a person holding a title on the register as the prisoner although he/she knows that a lawsuit for dispute over the ownership of land is pending.

Only if the subject matter was the subject matter of a lawsuit or the defendant, who was the prisoner, was aware of such circumstance, was negligent in confirming the true ownership, and even if the subject matter was confirmed to be owned by the plaintiff by the judgment, the above acquisition of ownership by the defendant, who is the prisoner, cannot bring about any complaint.

Articles 23, 61, and 64 of the Land Expropriation Act

Supreme Court Decision 71Da873 delivered on June 22, 1971 (Kakadd. 9720, Supreme Court Decision 19BDo151 delivered on June 22, 197, Article 23(1)1795 of the Land Expropriation Act)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Jeju District Court (70 high-level391) in the first instance trial

The part against the defendant, etc. among the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff of the first and second instances.

In relation to Defendant 1 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 1”), it is confirmed that KRW 115 of Jeju City No. 1, 479-1 site is owned by the Plaintiff.

The defendant performed the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer on the ground of land expropriation on September 23, 1967 by Jeju District Court (No. 6474) for the above 115 square meters of the above site, and confirmed that the expenses for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on the ground of land expropriation on August 25, 1967 were KRW 3,452,90, and received the above money from the plaintiff, while delivering the above money to the plaintiff at the same time, and delivering the same article to the plaintiff, and performing the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on the ground of the above site 115 square meters of the above site, No. 1,479-5, 1479-3, 1430-1, 1492, 1498, 1498, 1498, 105 square meters, 305 square meters of the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the registration site.

Defendant 2 Bank (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Bank”) shall implement the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration on July 5, 1968 received by Jeju District Court No. 5243 on July 31, 1968 with respect to 200 square meters of the above water storage place (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Bank”) and remove the buildings of the 102 square meters of the attached drawing table among the 138 square meters of 138 square meters of 138 square meters of the above 115 square meters of 115 square meters of the above 1115 square meters of the building by removing the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration on May 31, 1968 and the building of the 111 square meters of the roof.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

The same shall apply to the order.

On the 115th page of the site in the text, there is no dispute between the parties as to the facts that the registration was made in the future of Defendant 1 as to the 115th page of the building site in the order, and the registration of preservation was completed as to the 1st page of the building site in the steel confluence, and as to the fact that the Defendant bank, as to the fact that the registration was completed and the registration was completed in the future of the Defendant bank, and that the Defendant bank, as to the fact that it, built and occupied the building as described above on the

In addition, considering the contents of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7-3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 9 without dispute over the establishment of the parties concerned, the land of this case was originally owned by the non-party Ansann, which was originally taken over, and the non-party No. 1 died on May 26, 1937, and the non-party No. 1 completed the registration of the above site as his inheritor on the ground of inheritance on August 8, 1966, and thereafter, the registration of the transfer was made in order between the non-party No. 1 and the non-party No. 3 on March 27, 1967, and the non-party No. 1, 2, and 3 on the land of this case after filing a lawsuit for the cancellation registration procedure for each registration of the above site of this case against the non-party No. 1, 2, and 1967, the registration of the cancellation was completed by the plaintiff's non-party No. 1 and the plaintiff's land expropriation was confirmed by the plaintiff No. 167. 13.

We examine the plaintiff's ownership of the site of this case and the claim for the cancellation registration procedure.

The plaintiff asserts that the land in this case was owned by the plaintiff who succeeded to the approval plaintiff due to the death of the above Ansan, and that since the non-party 1 had registered the land as his heir as his grandchild, the registration was completed before the non-party 3 before the registration was completed, this cannot be exempted from being the registration of invalidity without any cause. Meanwhile, the defendant Development Company asserted that the land in this case owned by the plaintiff against the non-party 3, the registered titleholder of the plaintiff, land expropriation and its registration was made before the defendant for that reason.

Therefore, it is reasonable to see whether the instant site is the Plaintiff’s ownership of prize money and the registration made in the future of the Defendant Development Company is authorization for invalidation without cause as alleged.

The fact that the land in this case was confirmed as owned by the plaintiff and the fact that the registration was made before the defendant 1 on the ground of the land expropriation due to the reasons of the land expropriation during the lawsuit as seen above is legitimate even if the public project operator fails to confirm the inmate without any negligence, in light of the purpose and purport of the law, deposit of compensation, public announcement of land tax items, and the rights and obligations of the inmate, etc., if the public project operator fails to confirm the inmate without negligence, the formal right holder can be determined as the inmate. Furthermore, the effect of the expropriation cannot be viewed as the owner of the object of expropriation, and the ownership already owned by the public authority of the State should be extinguished by the expropriation, and the public project operator should acquire the right completely and clearly. In this case, even if the land expropriation was made during the lawsuit in this case, the land expropriation procedure was duly completed against the non-party 3 who is the owner on the registry at that time, and the land expropriation procedure was made in the above defendant before the above defendant, and it cannot be confirmed that the land in this case was owned by the above defendant's owner or lost its ownership.

Therefore, there is no reason to believe that the instant land is owned by the Plaintiff.

Next, we examine the plaintiff's confirmation of the opening construction cost of this case and the delivery of a ductal structure and the cancellation registration procedure of each transfer of ownership against the ductal book.

First, it is clear that Defendant 1’s assertion that construction cost of 115 square meters is KRW 3,452,90 on the site of this case, which is established by Defendant 1 itself, is sought to confirm the existence of facts even if it is based on its own, and therefore, it is no longer necessary to follow it as a judgment. Since the Plaintiff was constructed on the land which he accepted without compensation, Defendant 1 has a duty to deliver the above construction cost to the Plaintiff at the same time as he received the above construction cost from the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 70 of the Land Expropriation Act, but the land expropriation is legitimate, as seen earlier, and it does not carry out the duty of return and restoration to the original state until the case is asserted by the Plaintiff. Accordingly, since the Defendant acquired ownership on the site of this case by land expropriation and constructed structures above, it is not reasonable to do so, and since the Defendant’s ownership is owned by the Defendant, it is not reasonable to preserve the above registration and its assertion is valid.

Finally, I examine the plaintiff's request for removal of building.

Ultimately, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant bank built a building without any title on the site of this case owned by the plaintiff and sought its removal. However, as seen earlier, the defendant 1 acquired the ownership of the site of this case through land expropriation, and the defendant bank established the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the building, and thereafter the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the unit of the building of this case was transferred to the defendant bank, the unit of the unit

If so, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit is without merit, and thus, the judgment of the court of first instance is partially unfair and this appeal is with merit, so it is so decided as per Disposition by Articles 386, 93, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Dong-chul (Presiding Judge)