The presumption of the loss restitution period, in which the date of receipt, receipt number, and cause date of the former registration is obscure;

Even if the date of receipt, receipt number, and cause date of the previous registration were stated respectively in the registration of recovery of destruction, it is reasonable to presume that it was legally accepted and processed by the registration officer, unless there are any particular circumstances.

Articles 80 and 81 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da1485 delivered on November 28, 1978, 78Da1238 delivered on December 26, 1978, 79Da1550 Delivered on November 13, 1979, 80Da1795 Delivered on October 14, 1980

Revised Judgment

Supreme Court Decision 72Da1933 delivered on June 12, 1973, 79Da63 delivered on June 12, 1979, 79Da467 delivered on November 27, 1979

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and 75 others

Seoul High Court Decision 79Na3806 delivered on November 20, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Based on its reasoning, the court below held that the above recovery registration shall be presumed to be a valid registration completed in accordance with due recovery registration procedure, unless there are other special circumstances, unless there is any dispute between the parties, and the fact that the registration for the transfer of ownership has been completed in the name of the other Defendants as stated in the column for the titleholder of the same list as of the date stated in the list No. 3 attached to the court below as to the real estate listed in 2,3,6 through 11,14 through 17, 19,22,25,26,28, 28, 30, 32 through 35 among the land listed in the list No. 1 of this case, and the registration date stated in the list No. 3 attached to the court below as to each of the above real estate was not attached to the certificate of right to the previous registration required in the procedure for recovery registration, or to the certificate of right to the previous registration required in the procedure for the registration of each recovery, the receipt number and the cause date of the preceding registration.

2. According to Article 80 of the Registration of Real Estate Act: (a) where an application for registration of recovery is filed when the whole or a part of the register is destroyed, the order number of the preceding registration, the date of receipt of the application, and the certificate of completion of the preceding registration; and (b) Article 81 of the said Act requires that the date of receipt of the application for registration of recovery if the above application is filed. Meanwhile, according to the outline for registration of recovery of real estate ownership established by a party member, an application for registration of recovery may be accompanied by the certificate of completion of the preceding registration, but if it is impossible to submit it, a certified copy or abstract of the preceding registration, a certified copy of the house register, or any other public document certifying the rights. This is reasonable. According to Article 80 of the said Act, if an application for registration of recovery is filed on 197, 197, 197, 297, 307, 97, 97, 97, 97, 97, 197, 197, 2, 97, etc. It is deemed that the previous registration is not received.

3. According to the record, according to the result of the first examination for land cadastre as shown in the theory of lawsuit, it is stated that the transfer of ownership to Defendant 3 was 4287, which is short-term 4287 (west 1954) and this is identical to the theory of lawsuit that was registered as the principal restoration of the defendant's name, but it is not possible to draw the conclusion that the above procedure for recovery registration was defective on the ground that it is entered. Thus, there is no theory of lawsuit as to this point.

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

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young (Presiding Justice) Lee So-young, Kim So-young, Lee So-young, Lee So-young, Kim So-young, Lee So-young