2006 Ghana 1949 Registration for cancellation of ownership

**************************** (*)

** Si* Dong****

************************** (*)

Gangwon* military*** Eup*********

*************************** (*)

Gangnamwon** military** side*** Ri****

4. Norway** (**************************))

*** Dong******-**

G5.******************************* (*)

****** such******* apartment** such***

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff *

Korea

Legal representative Kim Sung-ho

Litigation Performers Kim*

May 30, 2007

June 27, 2007

1. The defendant will implement the registration procedure for cancellation of each registration of ownership preservation, which was completed by the receipt No. 2284 of April 20, 1995, to the plaintiffs as to each real estate listed in the separate list* the Chuncheon District Court* registry office*.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Gangwon-do*** in the group** in the group** in the separation* in the forest* in the 15th unit of the forest (hereinafter referred to as the "forest before the division").

India: <2.28 February 28, 1974; 1 Dowon* military ** Myeon* * Risan** 6thma of 15 forest * 6th of 15, 2 the same Ri.

mountain**-**-* Unclaimed 6 parts of forest, ③ the same riland**-1 parts of forest, ④ 3 1 parts of forest, ④ the same Ri*-*-forest 9

It was pointed out as 4 lots free of interest.

(b) above** Risan**-* Forest land was divided into the same Risan***, *, and * land on February 19, 1977; and

After division*** separation*****-*-* Forest land is strongwon** * Eup** Risan**-Linsan*4,430 meters of forest land.

The administrative district and the unit of area have been changed on April 9, 1985 and the same Risan**-* the division of the administrative district and the unit of area.

Afterward, as described in paragraph 1 of the attached Table on March 11, 2004, *** Forest land *

38,119m, mountain 184-15 forest 6,194m, mountain 184m, mountain 184-16m2, divided into 52m2

was made.

(c) in addition, divided from the forest before division*** Risan*-* 6th of forest land * Gangwon* * * * *

Eup** Lisan**-*-Yinland 2,578 square meters, administrative districts and area units have been changed on March 11, 2004

*** Masan*-* Forest land 2,377 square meters, the same Ri on the land cadastre as shown in attached Table 2

Busan**-*** Forest land was divided into a root of 201m.

D. Meanwhile, the Decree on the Erosion Control Work (Ordinance No. 17 of August 25, 193, 193), No. 17 of 12 years in the Japanese War (1937)

Gangwon-do** Gun* * Myeon, which is bound to design for erosion control work in the area No. 1 of Myeon, prepared by Gangwon-do.

The forest land registration protocol in the forest land registration protocol shall be deemed to be a private ground for the division column, and the owner and the occupant of the forest land before the division;

or the person concerned has been recorded in net No. **'s address and name. E. Net No. ** died on February 27, 194, and he has succeeded to No. ** on his own.

Labor** Emno* dies on February 7, 1970, and dies, and Trade Union** and Labor Union** Each of six/7, 1/7, and 7 shares*

A Joint Inheritance and Trade Union* on February 4, 1993, the adjudication of disappearance of this Court on February 4, 1993 (No. 1955)

6. The expiration of the period of unknown life or death of the plaintiff**, Nos.*, Nos.*, Nos.*, Nos.**

As a result, Plaintiff Union*, this*, Labor*, Labor*, Labor*, Labor*, Labor* by share of inheritance 9/63;

18/63, 12/63, 12/63, and 12/63.

F. However, on April 20, 1995, the defendant, following the procedure for nationalization of non-owned real estate, each of the entries in the separate sheet.

For movable property (hereinafter referred to as "real property of this case"), each of the items described in the order in its name;

A registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter referred to as "registration of preservation of this case") has been completed. [The grounds for recognition: facts not disputed, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 13, Gap evidence 3, evidence 4-1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination,

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, the forest land before division is owned by the reason that it was under the name of the forest land in this Japanese colonial era, etc., and the plaintiffs were succeeded to this real estate after division from the forest land before division* in succession.

Therefore, the preservation registration of this case is deemed null and void unless there are special circumstances. Thus, the defendant is obligated to cancel it to the plaintiffs. (In this regard, the defendant asserts that the entry of the plan of erosion control work alone is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the owner of a forest before this division is the owner of a forest. However, the entry of the forest land in the forest land cadastral record compiled in the plan of erosion control work can be deemed to be in accordance with the entry in the register or the forest land cadastral register at the time (see Supreme Court Decision 99Da35911 delivered on October 22, 199). Thus, the defendant's assertion cannot be accepted.

In addition, the defendant asserted that the plaintiffs cannot be viewed as the true owner in light of the fact that the plaintiffs did not complete the registration of preservation of ownership in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Restoration Registration and Registration of Preservation of Unclaimed Land in Diplomatic Areas, but such fact alone does not constitute a reason to reject the fact that the plaintiffs are the owners of the real estate in this case, so this part of the claim is without merit).

(1) Acquisition by means of nationalization procedures for non-owned real estate

The real estate owned by a landowner is not a non-real estate, but a state-owned real estate under Article 8 of the State Property Act is not a state-owned real estate. Accordingly, even if the real estate had gone through the procedures for nationalization of non-owned real estate under Article 8 of the State Property Act, it does not belong to the state-owned lawsuit. As seen earlier, the defendant's assertion that the real estate of this case was acquired by the ownership of the real estate of this case through the procedures for nationalization of non-owned real estate is without merit.

Since the registration of preservation of ownership was completed on April 20, 1995, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant is valid in accordance with the substantive relations, since the acquisition by prescription of the real estate in this case was completed by occupying the real estate in peace and public performance for ten or more years without negligence with the intention of ownership.

On the other hand, the acquisition by prescription of the registry requires that there was no negligence in the commencement of possession, unlike the acquisition by prescription of possession, and the burden of proof exists for the claimant (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da2665, Aug. 22, 1997, etc.). The fact that the name and address of the owner of the forest land registration protocol relating to the forest land before division is recorded is as mentioned above *** as the defendant, who is the managing body of the above forest land registration protocol and the family registration register, can be known through confirmation of the family registration register ** even though he was negligent in such confirmation, if the plaintiff, the heir, was found to be non-real estate as non-real estate under the State Property Act, and only the procedure for the acquisition of non-real estate under the State Property Act was commenced, it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the defendant (where the existence of the heir is unknown, it shall be reverted only to the country under Article 1058 of the Civil Act after the public announcement procedure under Article 1057 of the same Act).

Therefore, even if the defendant commenced the possession of the real estate of this case after finishing the preservation registration of this case, it shall be deemed that the possession of the real estate of this case is negligent, so the defendant's defense cannot be accepted.

Thus, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified, and this is accepted.

Hephoho Lake