The ownership of land was acquired upon completion of the prescription period for acquisition of possession.

Since it can be recognized that the land has been occupied from the time of registration to the day of the closure of pleading, the fact that the land has been occupied for not less than 20 years is clear from the fact that it has been occupied for not less than 20 years, and it is presumed that it has been occupied in peace and openly with its intention,

2012Gahap78318 Registration of Cancellation of Ownership

ThisAAA

Republic of Korea 2 other

December 14, 2012

January 22, 2013

1. Seoul Eastern District Court with respect to the land described in paragraph (1) of the list;

The registration procedure for cancellation of each registration of ownership preservation shall be implemented, which was completed on December 27, 1993 by the same registry office No. 151270, with respect to the land in the list No. 44557, which was completed on October 20, 1970 and entered in paragraph 3 of the same list.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant YangBBB and SouthCC is dismissed, respectively.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea is borne by the Defendant.

The part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant YangBB and SouthCC shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The disposition No. 1 and the plaintiff, the defendant YangBBB shall perform the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on June 29, 2005 by the Gangseo-gu Seoul East District Court's Gangseo-dong District Court's dong District Court's 40065 of receipt on June 29, 2005 with respect to the land listed in paragraph 2 of the same list, and the defendant SouthCC shall implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer registration for

1. Basic facts

A. The assessment title of each land of this case

1) 이DDD(李DDD)은 일제 시대에 경기 광주군 구천면 OO리(이후 '서울 강동구 OO동'으로 변경되었다) 000 전 1,129평(이하 '분할 전 000 토지'라고 한다, 이하 지명

The reason was that the number was omitted and only entered).

(b) Details of the subdivision and registration of 00 land prior to the subdivision;

1) Before subdivision, 00-3 on March 20, 1953: 698 square meters before March 20, 1953, 164 square meters and 000-3

The above 00-1 land (hereinafter referred to as "land prior to the division") was partitioned into 267 square meters on December 20, 1962, 00-1 large 43 square meters on September 16, 1966, 00-19 large 30 square meters on September 16, 1966 and 40 square meters on 00-3 large 00-4 large 7,000-54 large 7,00-61 large 7 square meters on March 25, 1978, and was divided into 00-64 large 1 square meters on March 25, 197 (attached Form 3), and the above 00-61 square meters on October 30, 198 (attached Table 3) was combined with the above land (attached Table 3).

2) The registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 20, 1970 as of the land listed in the separate list No. 44557 of the Seoul East Eastern District Court, Gangwon-dong District Court, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 20, 1970, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on October 24, 197, the ownership transfer registration was made on October 24, 197, the ownership transfer registration was made on December 31, 197, the title transfer registration was made on December 31, 197, the ownership transfer registration was made on April 15, 197, and the ownership transfer registration was made on May 27, 2005, the ownership transfer registration was made on June 29, 2005, the ownership transfer registration was made on May 27, 2005.

3) As to the land indicated in paragraph (2) of the attached list No. 2, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of Defendant Republic of Korea as of April 26, 1979 by the same registry office as of April 26, 1979, and as of June 29, 1983 by the receipt No. 104539 of the same registry office as of June 29, 1983, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 21, 1983.

4) As to the land indicated in paragraph 3 of the attached list, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the future of Defendant Republic of Korea as the receipt No. 151270 of December 27, 1993 by the same registry office.

(c) Entry of land-related documents, etc.;

1) In the ground registration book drawn up around 1935, the owner of the land of 00-1 before subdivision is stated as O(O) (O) and the old land cadastre on the land of 000-1 before subdivision was corrected by OO on September 8, 1966, and the ownership preservation was made in the Republic of Korea on August 29, 1968 (Evidence 3). The closed real estate registration register of the above land was stated as being completed on August 29, 1968 by the Republic of Korea (Evidence 4). The land alteration resolution was stated as follows: (a) the owner of the land of 00-1 land before subdivision was entered as the taxpayer of each land divided from the land of 00-1 before subdivision; (b) the list of the owners of the land of 100-1 and 200-1, and (c) the list was entered as the list of the owners of the land of 20-1 and the list of 20-1 and 3 of the old land.

2) On the old land cadastre of 000-9, which is divided from the mother land as well as the land before subdivision, the owner of the above land changed from DD to O on December 31, 1962 (Evidence A-3), and on the closed real estate register of the above land, the Defendant Republic of Korea entered that the registration for the preservation of ownership was completed on March 21, 1964 (Evidence A-3).

(d) Inheritance relations; and

1) 원고의 선대인 이DDD(李DDD)의 제적등본에는 이DDD이 '경기도 광주군 구천면OO리 188에서 전적신고'한 것으로 기재되어 있다.

2) ADD has died on November 10, 1950, and EO, the head of ADD, succeeded to and died of EO on November 10, 1974, where EO, the child of EO, EO, EO, and EO have succeeded to EO's property, and EO has died on May 10, 1992, and EO has succeeded to EO, EO, EO, EO, EO, EO, EO, EO, EO, EO, and the Plaintiff's property.

3) Each heir of EO and EO made an agreement on the division of inherited property that the land that was divided from the land that was divided from 000 land before division was owned by the Plaintiff on June 2010.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 through 3, Gap evidence 3 through 5-1 through 3, Gap evidence 7-1, 2, Gap evidence 8-1 through 3, Gap evidence 9-1 through 3, Gap evidence 10-1 through 3, Gap evidence 12-1, 2, Eul evidence 13-1 through 3, Eul evidence 13-4, Eul evidence 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. A person registered in the Land Survey Book as an owner is presumed to have become final and conclusive in view of the circumstances, unless there is any counter-proof such as the change of the circumstances by the adjudication, etc., and thus, a person who is presumed to be the owner of the land. The presumption of registration of preservation of ownership is broken if it is found that a person other than the preservation registrant was in receipt of the relevant land in question (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da46654, May 23, 1997; 98Da13686, Sept. 8, 198).

B. In full view of the following circumstances as revealed in the above facts, i.e., the Plaintiff’s prior owner of DoDD’s name is identical to the Plaintiff’s temporary owner of 000 land prior to partition, and the Gyeonggi-do “Seoul-do, the address of the Plaintiff’s prior owner of DoDD’s land” is the same area as the Plaintiff’s prior owner of DoD’s address, and there is no evidence to prove that DoD existed in the above area at the time, it is reasonable to view that DoD and DoD, the Plaintiff’s prior owner of DoD, were the same as the Plaintiff’s prior owner of DoD’s land, and that DoBD’s registration of ownership transfer was revoked for each of the following reasons. In addition, since the Plaintiff’s prior owner of DoD’s land was divided into 00 land prior to subdivision and the list of DoBD’s ownership transfer registration on each of the above land, the Plaintiff’s prior ownership preservation registration of 200 land was reversed as to each of the above list No.1.

3. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense

(a) argument that ownership has been transferred from DoD to O;

1) Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that, in light of the fact that all owners were listed as O in the geographical names, the old land cadastre, and the land alteration resolution as to the 000-1 land before the division, the ownership of the 000-1 land before the division was transferred from D to O. Thus, the Plaintiff, the heir of DD, is not the owner of each land listed in the separate sheet divided from 000-1 land before the division, and thus, there is no entitlement to claim cancellation of registration of ownership preservation for Defendant Republic of Korea. The Plaintiff asserts that there was no entitlement to claim cancellation of registration of ownership preservation for Defendant Republic of Korea. The fact of succession from D to O was asserted to be succeeded to O from D, the name holder of 00-1 land before the division, and the fact of acquisition by succession from D to O.

It must be proved (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da27649, Sept. 15, 1995).

The fact that the owner is listed as OO in the geographical name, land cadastre and land alteration resolution letter on the land concerning 000-1, and the owner of each land listed in the attached list also in the land cadastre of each land listed in the attached list.

The fact that the owner of the above land was changed from EDR to O on December 31, 1962 on the old land cadastre of 000-9, which was entered as O or deleted from such entry, together with the land of 000-1 before subdivision, was recognized as above, but the above fact of recognition is as follows. However, the following circumstances, i.e., the document prepared for the administrative purpose of imposing tax, and it cannot be readily concluded that the registration of ownership transfer of the target real estate was completed in the future on the ground that the taxpayer's entry is merely a document prepared for the administrative purpose of imposing tax (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da17792, Nov. 30, 207) and the owner of the above land was changed from EDR to O on December 31, 1962 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da179792, Dec. 30, 2008).

② In the old land cadastre concerning 000-1 land before subdivision, it is only written by O only as an 'accident correction' column concerning the ground for acquiring ownership before subdivision, and it is difficult for OO to recognize that the ownership of the land before subdivision was transferred to O from AD, ③ the entry of the owner of the former land cadastre concerning 00-1 land before subdivision is divided into 80,000,000,0000, and the taxpayer was entered as O in the land alteration resolution, and the person liable to pay the tax in the above land alteration resolution statement appears to be in accordance with the entry of the owner's column of the above land cadastre. In light of the fact that it appears that the land cadastre of each land listed in the attached list is nothing more than that of the previous land cadastre for 00-1 land before subdivision, the above recognition alone alone is insufficient to recognize that the ownership of the land before subdivision was transferred to O from AD, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant of the Republic of Korea is without merit.

B. The assertion that the land listed in Attachment List No. 1 is attributed to property

1) Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the land specified in attached list Nos. 1 was owned by Japan’s OO, and that the property devolving upon Defendant Republic of Korea was the property devolving upon the State.

2) As of August 9, 1945, property in the name of a Japanese government on the registry was acquired by the U.S. military government under Article 33 subparagraph 2 of the U.S. military government Act, but transferred property to the Government of the Republic of Korea under Article 5 of the first agreement on finance and property concluded between the Government of the Republic of Korea and the Government of the United States (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da32812, Nov. 15, 1996).

(3) Comprehensively taking account of the above facts: Gap evidence Nos. 4-3 and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the old land cadastre No. 1 stated on Sep. 8, 1966 that the above land was corrected by O on Sept. 8, 1966; the ownership transfer registration for the reasons of sale in the separate sheet No. 2 of the above land was completed on Oct. 20, 1970; the ownership transfer registration for the above land was completed on the same day after the registration of ownership was completed on Oct. 10, 197; the former land was sold to many persons, including the 100-1 and 50-1 and the new land acquired on Mar. 21, 195, and there was no other evidence to prove that there was a lack of ownership transfer registration for the above 90-1 and 14-1 and 4-4 of the former Land as to the ownership of the above land.

(c) Defenses that the acquisition by prescription or the acquisition by prescription of the registry for the land listed in paragraph (3) of the attached list has been completed;

1) Since the registration of preservation of ownership of the land listed in [Attachment List No. 3] was completed in around 1979, the Defendant Republic of Korea asserted that the acquisition by prescription or the acquisition by prescription of the registry has been completed by acting in good faith and without negligence as the intention of ownership for twenty (20) years since the completion of registration of preservation of ownership of the land listed in [Attachment List No. 3], registration of preservation

2) In a case where it is proved that the possessor occupied the real estate owned by another person without permission knowing the existence of the legal act or any other legal requirements that may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession without permission, barring any special circumstance, the possessor does not have an intention to reject the ownership of another person and hold possession. Thus, the presumption of possession with the intention to own is broken. Furthermore, even in a case where the local government or the state takes the procedure for the acquisition of public property under the Local Finance Act or the State Property Act, such as the payment of its own share or donation, or incorporates the private land into the road site without a specific title to possess the land, such as obtaining the consent of its owner (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da64472, Mar. 27, 2001).

3) In the instant case, 00-54 land on the land before subdivision, 000-1 and 000-54

00-64 Land has been divided, so it can be recognized that its owner is an O in the old land cadastre of 000-1 land before division. As such, Defendant Republic of Korea is the above land.

From the point of view, it is reasonable to view that the land listed in Paragraph (3) of the Attached List, which was partitioned, was a private ground. In light of the above, it cannot be deemed that the land prior to subdivision was a property devolving upon the Defendant’s Republic of Korea, and no other evidence was submitted to deem that the Defendant Republic of Korea had gone through the procedure to acquire the said land for public use. As such, the Defendant Republic of Korea cannot be deemed to have occupied the said land without permission, and thus, the presumption of the Defendant’s autonomous possession against the Republic of Korea was broken. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense of the acquisition by prescription or the acquisition by prescription based on the premise that the Defendant Republic of Korea occupied the land listed in Paragraph (3) of the Attached

4. Determination as to the defenses by Defendant 2BB

The defendant BB argues that the acquisition by prescription or the acquisition by prescription of one owner of the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 was completed by succeeding to the possession and registration of the former occupant for at least 20 years, and that the acquisition by prescription or the acquisition by prescription of two BB as to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the registration of ownership transfer is valid in accordance with the substantive relationship. The registration of ownership transfer for the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 is completed in the future of the Republic of Korea on October 20, 1970; the registration of ownership transfer for the following reasons: (a) ownership transfer for the first time on October 24, 1970; (b) ownership transfer for the first time on December 31, 197; (c) ownership transfer for the first time on December 31, 197; and (d) ownership transfer for the first time on April 15, 1997; and (d) ownership transfer for each of the above owners is presumed to have been completed by each of the above owners.

5. Determination on Defendant SouthCC’s defense

Defendant SouthCC purchased the land specified in attached list No. 2 from Defendant Republic of Korea for 20 years

As long as the acquisition by prescription has been completed by peaceful and openly occupying it, the registration of ownership transfer of Defendant SouthCC defense is valid registration that conforms to the substantive relations. The registration of ownership transfer of Defendant SouthCC has been completed on the land listed in paragraph (1) of the separate sheet in the Bail List, and the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 29, 1983, and that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale in the future of Defendant SouthCC on June 29, 1983 is recognized as above. According to the purport of the entire pleadings, the fact that Defendant South KoreaOO occupied the above land from the lack of the above registration to the completion

Therefore, it is apparent that Defendant SouthCC has occupied the land specified in attached Table 2 for not less than 20 years, and it is presumed that the possessor has occupied the land in peace and openly with his intention to own (Article 197(1) of the Civil Act). Defendant SouthCC acquired the ownership of the above land upon the completion of the prescription on June 23, 2003. Therefore, Defendant SouthCC’s transfer of ownership is valid as a registration consistent with the substantive relationship, and therefore, Defendant SouthCC’s defense is reasonable.

6. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea shall be accepted on the ground of its reasoning, and the claim against both the defendant BBB and SouthCC shall be dismissed on the ground of each ground. It is so decided as per Disposition.