Presumption of Registration of Ownership Preservation

Where the registration of preservation of ownership has been made, it shall be presumed that the ownership has been owned by the titleholder of the registration for preservation, but the registration of preservation made by the titleholder of the registration for preservation has been acquired by succession from the owner before the registration for preservation has been made, so long as the former owner denies the acquisition by succession to the titleholder, the presumption of such registration shall be broken.

Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da1658 delivered on February 26, 1974 (Supreme Court Decision 221Da87 delivered on February 26, 197, Supreme Court Decision 10661 delivered on June 21, 197, Supreme Court Decision 22Da187 delivered on June 26, 199, Supreme Court Gazette 7761 delivered on June 2

Plaintiff

Defendant

Government Branch of Seoul District Court (79 Gahap122) in the first instance court

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

It is confirmed that the real estate in the attached list is owned by the plaintiff.

On January 13, 1975, the Defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration on the ground of sale as of November 27, 1974, which was completed as No. 30 of the receipt of the Macheon District District Court Decision No. 30 on January 13, 1975.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1-2 and Eul evidence Nos. 1-2 and 2 (the certified copy of each register) which are not disputed in the establishment, the registration of ownership transfer is completed on Sep. 4, 1961 with respect to the 191's 11,740's Madong-ri-ri-dong 191's 191's and 11,740's Mancheon-gun-gun-gun-gun-do, Seocheon-gun-do, and the registration of ownership transfer is completed on Nov. 16, 1961 with respect to the 125's receipt of the same registration office, and the registration of ownership transfer is completed in the name of the non-party No. 1890 on May 12, 1962, the registration of ownership transfer is divided into three parcels of real estate under the name of the non-party 1's ownership and the registration of ownership transfer is not accepted on the same real estate under the name of the non-party 13's ownership.

The plaintiff asserts that the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the non-party was invalid, since the non-party 1 owned the real estate and the registration of ownership transfer was also made under the name of the non-party without any cause. Thus, the registration of ownership transfer under the non-party 1 was made under the non-party 1 as to the above Sungdong-dong-ri 191, 11,740 prior to the division. Thus, the real estate is presumed to be owned by the non-party 2-1,2,3 (each judgment), and the non-party 2-4 of the evidence No. 2-2, and the above real estate was already owned under the non-party 4's name prior to the completion of registration of ownership transfer under the non-party 4's name, and it is recognized that the non-party 1 had already been transferred to the non-party 1 for the above real estate under the non-party 4's name, and that the plaintiff's ownership transfer was not denied, and the plaintiff's ownership transfer was within the non-party 2-party 1 and the above 4-party 3's original purport of the plaintiff 4.

Therefore, the real estate is owned by the plaintiff, and the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the non-party 1 is null and void without any cause, and even if the defendant bought the real estate in good faith from the non-party 3, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant is null and void. Since the defendant claims that the real estate is owned by the defendant, the defendant has the interest in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of ownership, and the defendant has the obligation to cancel the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate in this case, and the plaintiff is obliged to accept the plaintiff's claim for this case. Accordingly, the decision of the court below is just and without merit, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are borne by the defendant who has lost

Judge Lee Young-soo (Presiding Judge)