Procedures for cancellation of the reversion of real estate purchased from Japan before August 9, 1945 but not registered for relocation;

Even if a Korean person already purchased from a Japanese person and actually owned by a Korean person before August 9, 1945, such real estate shall be deemed property devolving upon the State pursuant to subparagraph 33 of the Military Affairs Act, unless it is registered in the name of a Japanese person as of August 9, 1945. In this case, the property devolving upon the State shall be released from the property devolving upon the State if the adjudication on cancellation of attribution by the Appeal Committee on Property, the decision on cancellation of attribution by a simple petition, or the confirmation under subparagraph 120 of the Act, or

Article 2 of the Military Enforcement Decree No. 33 (Abolition)

Plaintiff 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Korea

Gwangju High Court Decision 80Na356 delivered on October 27, 1980

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' legal representative's ground of appeal No. 1.

(A) According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the above judgment of the court below was affirmed on the ground that the above judgment of the court below was held on the 19th day after it had been rejected on the 19th day on the 19th day on the 3rd day on the 1945. August 9, 195 that the above judgment of the court below was held on the 19th day on the 19th day on the 2nd day on the 1st day on the 3rd day on the 9th day on the 1st day on the 195th day on the 1st day on the 197th day on the 1st day on the 9th day on the 1st day on the 196th day on the 1st day on the 1st day on the 9th day on the 1st day on the 1st day on the 3rd day on the 1st day on the 1st day on the 1st day on the 1952nd day on the above judgment.

(B) Even if Korea had already purchased real estate from Japan before August 9, 1945 and was registered in the name of Japan at the time of August 9, 1945 under the name of Japan, the property shall be reverted to Korea pursuant to subparagraph 33 of the Gun statutes. However, in such a case, the above additional registration shall not be deemed to have been cancelled from the property devolving upon the adjudication on cancellation of attribution by the Committee on Property, the decision on cancellation of attribution by a simple petition, or the confirmation under subparagraph 120 of the Act, or the final and conclusive judgment by the court, or upon receipt of a final and conclusive judgment from the court. In such a case, the registration by the court decision as above is required to be made in additional registration in accordance with the judicial administration, the precedents for registration handling by the Central Control Office and the Appeal Committee by the decision of November 19, 1948, according to the records.

However, according to the records, the plaintiffs asserted that the above registration in the above non-party 2's name was made by the final and conclusive judgment of Jeju District Court 1950 residents No. 8, and according to this, the above large 103 square meters shall be deemed not to be a property devolving upon the cancellation of ownership and shall not be a property devolving upon the State. As seen above, the court below held that the above large 103 square meters shall be a property devolving upon the State, and shall not be deemed to have included the purport of rejecting the above plaintiffs' assertion.

(C) In addition, as seen above, the judgment of the court below is just that each of the above lands is not subject to prescriptive acquisition since it is not subject to the possession frequently pursuant to Article 33 of the Military Administration Act, and it is clear that it does not hold that each of the above lands is not subject to prescriptive acquisition pursuant to Article 5(2) of the State Property Act, effective from December 31, 1976.

Therefore, there is no reason to see that there is an error of inconsistency, omission, or omission of judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

However, the Supreme Court Decision 79Da1080 Decided September 25, 1979 is about the time of application of Article 5 (2) of the State Property Act. Therefore, this case is not appropriate. Therefore, there is no error of violation of precedents such as theory of lawsuit in the judgment below.

Therefore, all appeals are 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 judges.

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)