Plaintiff (Uidong Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Hong-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

May 13, 2009

Suwon District Court Decision 2008Gadan1977 Decided November 7, 2008

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The judgment of the first instance court shall be revoked. It shall be confirmed that the ownership of the Plaintiff is 278 square meters prior to the Seo-ri (number 1 omitted) of Pyeongtaek-si.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff’s 287 square meters prior to Pyeongtaek-si, Seo-si (number 1 omitted). The Plaintiff sought confirmation of the Plaintiff’s possession of the said land against the Defendant in order to obtain registration of the preservation of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff because the said land was not registered at present.

In light of Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, if a claim for confirmation of ownership of a real estate against the State is unregistered, and there is no person registered in the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or the identity of a person registered in the forest land cadastre is unknown, and there is a benefit in confirmation only when there are special circumstances, such as the State continuously asserting ownership while denying the ownership of a third person who is a registered titleholder (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da27649 delivered on September 15, 1995). In light of Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, if it cannot be proved by a certified copy of the land cadastre or a certified copy of the forest land cadastre in the registration of ownership of real estate, the registration of ownership shall not be conducted by proving the ownership by a judgment (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da34390 delivered on July 10, 201).

According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1, 1, and 6 of this case, it can be recognized that the address “(number 2 omitted),” resident registration number (name 1 omitted), and name ○○○○○○○○○,” in the owner’s column for land cadastre as to the land of this case was changed on July 12, 1994, and the resident registration number was changed on July 12, 1994, indicated “the address “(number 2 omitted),” resident registration number (name 2 omitted), and name “○○○○○,” and thus, the Plaintiff may prove that the Plaintiff is the owner by a certified copy of land cadastre in the registration of preservation of ownership. Since there were no special circumstances, such as the Defendant’s assertion that the land of this case is owned by the Plaintiff, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the Plaintiff did not have any profit to seek confirmation as to whether the land of this case against the Defendant was owned by the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked differently from this conclusion, and it shall be so decided as per Disposition with the decision to dismiss the lawsuit of this case.

judge last head of the (Presiding Judge) Lee-hee