[1] Requirements for requesting the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true title

[2] In a case where the land is purchased under the Gu Resident Act and the title trustee completed the title trust registration and the registration is not completed under the name of the title truster, whether the title truster can seek implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of the true title (negative)

[1] A claim for registration of transfer of ownership for the restoration of a true title of registration is filed under one’s own name, or a true owner who acquired ownership by law seeks to implement the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership for the restoration of a true title of registration, based on ownership, by means of restoring the title of registration.

[2] Where a clan purchases forest land and so it is difficult to register the name of the clan in the future because it is difficult to register the name of the clan and asserts that the name of the clan was not registered in the future, even if the clan acquired ownership of forest land before the enforcement of the new Civil Code, it becomes null and void because it has not been registered within six years after the enforcement of the new Civil Code pursuant to Article 10 of the Addenda to the Civil Code, and therefore, the clan shall not be deemed to have the ownership to seek the implementation of the procedure

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 10 of the Addenda

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Meu20026 delivered on December 21, 1990 (Gong1991, 578) Supreme Court Decision 92Da48970 delivered on February 23, 1993 (Gong1993Sang, 1072), Supreme Court Decision 96Da47142 delivered on March 11, 1997 (Gong197Sang, 1060)

○○○○○○○○○○○ (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and five others (Attorney Jeon Young-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 97Na49024 delivered on July 1, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records and records, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the forest land of this case is owned by the plaintiff, and there is no error of misconception of facts due to the violation of the rules of evidence and the rules of experience.

In addition, a claim for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true title of registration is a registration to indicate ownership in its own name, or a true owner who acquired ownership under the law seeks to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the true title of registration (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu20026, Dec. 21, 1990; 96Da47142, Mar. 11, 1997). As asserted by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff purchased the forest of this case from Nonparty 1 on Jan. 24, 1937 due to the difficulty in acquiring the forest of this case from Nonparty 1 in purchasing the name of the clan, and thereby entering it in the name of the owner, the tax manager, and the taxpayer separately, and if the Plaintiff had not acquired ownership in the forest of this case before the enforcement of the new Civil Act, the Plaintiff cannot seek the registration of ownership transfer within 6 years after the enforcement of the new Civil Act.

Therefore, the decision of the court below is justified in rejecting the plaintiff's claim without examining whether each of the registrations of preservation of ownership completed in the future of the deceased non-party 2 is invalid because the forest of this case is not recognized as the plaintiff's ownership, and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of registration of preservation of ownership completed in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Forest Ownership (Act No. 2111 of May 21, 1969). Thus, the ground of appeal

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and the costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff who is the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)