Effect of the entry of ownership from a State on the old Forest Ledger;

According to Article 2 of the former Rules of Land Conservation (Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 113 of Aug. 23, 1920), which applies mutatis mutandis under Article 113 of the former Rules of Land Conservation (Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 45 of Apr. 25, 1914), the transfer of ownership cannot be registered on the land cadastre unless a public official's notice is given. However, the same shall not apply to cases where ownership is transferred due to non-refluence, exchange, transfer, or expropriation of unregistered land, or cases where unregistered land is State-owned. Thus, a person who was registered as a transferee or owner of ownership at the time of registration of ownership transfer can, in principle, be presumed as a person who acquired or acquired ownership at the time of registration of ownership transfer. However, if the former owner is a State, it cannot be presumed as such, and in

Article 2 of the former Rules on the Forestry Ledger (Ordinance of the Ministries No. 113 of August 23, 1920) and Article 2 of the former Rules on the Land Conservation (Ordinance of the Ministries No. 45 of April 25, 1914)

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Korea

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na5696 delivered on May 13, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the fact-finding by the court below is acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence, and if the facts are as acknowledged by the court below, the court below's disposition that did not recognize that the land of this case [294m2 prior to the Yanan-si ( Address 1 omitted)] was owned by the plaintiff was just, and there is no illegality such as the theory of lawsuit.

The argument appears to be that Nonparty 1, a conciliation division of the Plaintiff, obtained ownership on February 15, 1931 on the land cadastre of this case, and entered that Nonparty 1, a conciliation division of the Plaintiff, obtained ownership on February 15, 1931. However, as recognized by the court below, Nonparty 1, a conciliation division of the Plaintiff, was registered as a transfer of ownership from “the State” on February 15, 1931, and even if Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2’s death were one of the co-inheritors, insofar as the acquisition of ownership on the land of this case was caused by a legal act, so long as the acquisition of ownership on the land of this case was invalidated within six years pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Addenda of the Civil Act, so the Plaintiff cannot claim ownership itself, and the Plaintiff cannot claim ownership registration directly by this land cadastre (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 89Ma389, Mar. 20, 190).

According to Article 2 of the Land Conservation Rule applied mutatis mutandis under the Rules of the Forestry Register, which was enforced at the time when the land in this case was divided and land category changed, the transfer of ownership cannot be registered on the land cadastre unless the public official's notice was given. However, the same shall not apply to cases where the ownership is transferred due to non-owned land, exchange, concession, or expropriation of unregistered land, or where unregistered land is owned by a state. Thus, the person who was registered on the land cadastral book at the time when the ownership was acquired can be presumed as the person who acquired the ownership in the land cadastral book at that time. However, if the former owner is "State", it cannot be presumed as the former owner, but in this case, it can be presumed as having received the State-owned land from "State," and in this case, it can be presumed that the Plaintiff occupied the land in this case, so if the above non-party 1 or the Plaintiff occupied the land in this case, the right to claim the transfer registration should not be extinguished by prescription.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)