Suwon District Court-2014-Ba-527838 ( August 13, 2015)

No third party may request the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership on real estate acquired by prescription on the register.

Even if the registration of preservation of ownership is null and void, the ownership of the land was lost because the acquisition by prescription of the registration titleholders was completed thereafter.

Article 213 of the Civil Code: Claim for Return of Article Owned

Suwon District Court 2015Na32643 Registration of Cancellation of Ownership

AAA et al.

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Da527839 Decided August 13, 2015

April 21, 2016

July 21, 2016

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. 2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed. 3. Total costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant, among the 298 square meters prior to OOOO in OO-dong (hereinafter referred to as "the land in this case"), Plaintiff AA

Suwon District Court with respect to shares of 14/84 and shares of 56/84 to the plaintiff

In June 15, 1959, each procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership preservation, completed by Law No. 4090, will be implemented.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all filed.

each subparagraph.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or each of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1 through 4, evidence 1-2, evidence 2-1 through 3, evidence 3-1, evidence 4, evidence 5, evidence 6-1 through 3, evidence 7-2, evidence 8 through 13, evidence 14, and evidence 15-1 through 4, evidence 16, evidence 17-1 through 4, evidence 18-1, evidence 18-2, evidence 19, Eul evidence 1-3, evidence 1 through 3, and evidence 6-1 through 10, respectively.

(a) Process of registration of initial ownership, transfer of ownership, etc.;

1) The land survey division drafted during the Japanese colonial era contains the land survey board, which is written by Japan, as the owner of the instant land.

2) As to the land of this case, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 15, 1959 with OF 200, the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case 3G 276/29, and the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case 9G 207 GF 3G 200, and the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case 9G 27G 97 GF 206/29 was completed on November 16, 1983 for purchase and sale under the name of OF 9G 206/29, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the land of this case 27G 9G 207 GF 9G 27G 207.27G 9G 97G 207.27G 207.

1) On September 23, 2014, the Plaintiffs filed a suit against DD, EE, FF, and GG (including the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant) seeking the implementation of each of the registration procedures for preservation of ownership and cancellation of ownership transfer registration regarding the instant land, as well as DD, EE, F, and former registered titleholders, including the Defendant, as OOO on September 23, 2014. The court of first instance rendered a suit against the Plaintiff on August 13, 2015 that the instant land was not distributed pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act and the Act on Special Measures for Adjustment of Farmland Reform, or that the portion of the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Defendant 1’s heir was revoked on the ground that the ownership of the instant land was not completed within three years from the enforcement date of the Farmland Act, and that the portion of the Plaintiffs’ claim against the Plaintiff 1’s heir was finalized on the ground that it was reasonable to view that the portion of the judgment against the Plaintiff 1’s heir of HH was completed on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim against the heir 1484/6G.

2. Judgment on the plaintiffs' assertion

A. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiffs already acquired and owned the instant land before the enforcement of the former Farmland Reform Act. The instant land was purchased from the Government as farmland at the time of the farmland reform and the registration of preservation of ownership was completed under the Defendant’s name. However, in light of the fact that there was no data related to farmland distribution, repayment by distributors, and registration related to the instant land, the instant land was determined not to be distributed pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act, the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform, or it was distributed farmland, but all of its ownership was reverted to HH because there was no completion of repayment and registration by the distributors within 3 years from January 1, 1996, the enforcement date of the Farmland Act, but all of its ownership was returned to HH. As such, Plaintiff AA had the obligation to cancel the registration of preservation of ownership of each of the instant land. Accordingly, Plaintiff BB had the obligation to preserve ownership of each of the instant land under the name of the Plaintiffs.

B. Determination

Even if the registration of ownership preservation or the registration of ownership transfer of the title holder of a prior registration is null and void, in cases where the final titleholder later submitted a defense of the acquisition by prescription of the registry and the court accepted it, if the title holder asserts the loss of ownership by using the fact of the last titleholder’s acquisition by prescription, the claim for cancellation of ownership based on the ownership of the original owner shall be rejected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da7348, Mar. 3, 1995). Based on the above legal principles, the land in this case was not distributed pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act, the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland, or was distributed farmland, but all the redemption and registration were not made within 3 years from January 1, 1996, which was the effective date of the Farmland Act, and the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the ownership of the land in this case was void due to the fact that the ownership of the land in this case was forfeited after the completion of prescription registration was accepted by the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs’ assertion that the ownership in this case was lost due to the above claim for cancellation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each of the claims against the plaintiffs against the defendant in this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and all of the claims against the plaintiffs shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.