Presumption of ownership transfer registration from a deceased person

Since the ownership transfer registration following the registration from the deceased is the invalidation of the cause, the presumption of ownership of the person who registered the ownership is broken.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2493 delivered on November 12, 1985 (Dongun)

Attorney Jeon Byung-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellee among the Dozin Kim Gin Kim Kim-soo

For the elderly Gim C, et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant, et al.

Daegu High Court Decision 83Na1225 delivered on November 15, 1984

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the records, 26 pieces of land in this case were registered in the name of Nonparty 1, but each registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the clan in the name of the elderly clan on June 9, 1981 due to the termination of the trust, and with respect to 6 pieces of forest land in the name of the defendant clan on July 27, 1982, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Daegu University of the defendant School was based on the sale and purchase is presumed to be owned by the title holder according to the presumption of ownership registration, unless there is no dispute between the parties, so long as the registration of ownership is registered as above.

However, according to the records, the above non-party 1 is not a person of actual existence, but a co-help of the plaintiff elderly Gimchip, which is the co-owner of the non-party 2 (Myeonamamam, Myeonam) Gun of Chapter 2 (the 8th hand of Siamam) (the defendants also use this as a separate name). On the other hand, the non-party 1 acquired the ownership of the land and registered the preservation of ownership and the registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of non-party 1 in the name of the plaintiff 1. Thus, the above land for which the registration of ownership is made in the name of the above non-party 1 shall not be presumed to be owned by the plaintiff 1.

Therefore, even if the defendant Jung-gu received the registration of ownership transfer due to the termination of trust from the above non-party 1, the above non-party 1, as the above non-party 1 is an unqualified processed product, the presumption of ownership transfer registration cannot be deemed to be broken off as the cause becomes null and void. Therefore, since the registration of ownership transfer of the defendant school foundation is deemed null and void, it is also clear that the registration cannot be valid unless it entails substantial ownership.

The judgment of the court below is that the above land was handed down by the non-party 3 at the time of the defendant's death at the first anniversary of the first year of consideration, but even if it is true, it is not possible to claim the ownership without being subject to the circumstances of the original acquisition of the land or forest land under the Joseon Land Investigation Decree No. 2 of August 13, 1912 and the Joseon Forest Investigation Decree No. 5 of May 1, 1918, and there is no evidence to view that even after examining the records, there was no evidence to view that the land was under the name of the representative or clan member of the defendant's clan, and therefore, the reason for the recognition of the ownership on the ground that the land was laid down from the consideration protocol does not conflict.

In addition, even if it is assumed that the owner of ownership was acquired for any reason and the trust was terminated by the above non-party 1, it cannot be said that the trust or the trust was terminated by the deceased non-party 1, and the trust or the termination can be justified only when the trust or the termination was made by the deceased non-party 1, and there is no material to find out the fact.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which denied the plaintiff's ownership of the land in this case and concluded that the land in this case is owned by the defendant, and that the registration of ownership transfer of the defendant's name and the above part of the land that followed the registration from the defendant's name is valid, shall be judged to be erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the presumption of ownership, failing to meet the reasons for the judgment, and thereby violating the rules of evidence shall be deemed to have committed an unlawful act. Therefore, the judgment of the court below with reason for the argument shall not be maintained.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and remanded, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all Justices involved.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice) No. 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.