Ownership of real estate in the Republic of Korea registered in the name of the Army before the piracy;

Real estate in the Republic of Korea, which had been registered in the name of the Army, an agency of the Japanese government before the piracy, is the property devolving upon the devolved property under Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Government of the Republic of Korea (Act No. 1346 of May 29, 1963) and Article 5 of the Addenda of the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Government of the Republic of Korea (Act No. 1346 of May 29, 1963). Since Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Government of the Republic of Korea and Article 5 of the Addenda of the former Agreement between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America, the property which has not been sold until the end of December 1

Article 2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction; Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction (Act No. 1346, May 29, 1963); Article 5 of the Addenda (Act No. 1963, May 29, 1963)

Supreme Court Decision 81Da1319 Decided March 22, 1983 (Gong1983, 729), Supreme Court Decision 82Do2606 Decided May 10, 1983 (Gong1983, 984), Supreme Court Decision 96Da51875 Decided March 28, 197 (Gong1997, 1219), Supreme Court Decision 99Da56215 Decided December 7, 1999 (Gong200Sang, 150Sang, 150), Supreme Court Decision 98Da28442 Decided April 111, 200 (Gong200Sang, 1155), Supreme Court Decision 97Da37080 Decided June 9, 200 (Gong200, 1155).

Plaintiff 1 and five others (Law Firm Jinju, Attorneys Yang Jae-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na1272 delivered on September 7, 2001

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The judgment of the court below

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined, based on the adopted evidence, that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant in the name of the plaintiffs in this case was completed without any legal cause, and that the right presumption power cannot be acknowledged. The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the above registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant is a registration consistent with the substantive relation, since each of the real estate in this case was nationalized as property devolving, or the defendant acquired ownership by prescription for the acquisition of possession or by prescription for the acquisition of registry, and ordered the defendant to cancel

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

Real estate in the Republic of Korea, which had been registered in the Army name, an agency of the Government of Japan before the piracy, is a property devolving upon the devolved property under Article 2 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Government of the Republic of Korea under Article 5 of the first Agreement on Finance and Property between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America (see Supreme Court Decisions 81Da1319, Mar. 22, 1983; 82Do2606, May 10, 1983, etc.), Article 2 subparagraph 1 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Government of the Republic of Korea (Law No. 1346, May 29, 1963; 1964) and Article 5 of the Addenda of the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to the Government of the Republic of Korea, and thus property which has not been sold by the end of December 1, 1965.

According to the records, on August 1938, the Japanese Army value was divided into 1,647,40 square meters for the purpose of using it for shooting practice; 1,647,40 square meters for the purpose of using it for shooting practice; 2.1,000 square meters for the purpose of using it for shooting practice; 3.5,000 square meters for the purpose of using it for shooting practice; 3.0,000 square meters for the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Rural Affairs, for the purpose of using it for shooting practice; 3.0,000 square meters for the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and 1,647,000 square meters for the land of this case, and 1,65,000 square meters for the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, and 4.7,000 square meters for the Ministry of Land, Agriculture and Forestry, and 5,000 square meters for the land of this case; and 9.6,000 square meters for the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Forestry and Forestry, respectively.

According to the above circumstances, the real estate of this case was purchased on August 1, 1938 for the purpose of using it as a spoch practice hall and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and was used as a practice hall in Japan (so-called ○○○○○○○ Team) after the Japanese Army (so-called "spoke number omitted"), and it is highly probable that it is a property devolving upon the Government of the Republic of Korea under Article 2 of the first Agreement on Finance and Property between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States of America under Article 5 of the first Agreement on Financial and Property, and as a result, if the sales contract for each of the real estate of this case was not concluded by the end of December 1, 1964 under Article 5 of the Addenda of the former Act on Special Measures for the Management of Property Belonging to the Government of the Republic of Korea, it is highly probable that the Defendant would have come to have registered in accordance with the actual relation of the registration in the name of the Defendant for each of the real estate of this case by acquiring the ownership without compensation or possessing each of this case with the intention to own ownership.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that each of the real estate in this case was nationalized, or that the defendant acquired ownership of each of the real estate in this case by prescription or by the acquisition of the registry, it erred by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence or by misapprehending the legal principles as to the former Act on Special Measures for the Disposal of Property Belonging to Jurisdiction or the system for the acquisition of prescription. The ground of appeal pointing

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remainder of the grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Seo-sung (Presiding Justice)