The case where the head of Gun does not dispute the plaintiff's ownership by rejecting an application for registration of restoration in the name of the plaintiff on land cadastre.

According to Article 13 of the Cadastral Act and Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, when the land cadastre has been destroyed or lost, the head of the Gun must restore the land cadastre without delay, but the matters concerning the owner can not be registered without due to a real estate register or a final judgment of the court, and thus, the refusal of the above possession by the head of Si/Gun of Dongcheon-gu merely refused an application for the registration of recovery on the ground that the requirements for registration of recovery under the statutes are not satisfied, and thus, it cannot

Article 228 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 13 of the Cadastral Act, Article 10 of the Enforcement Decree of the Cadastral Act

Syun (Syun)

Socheon-gun:

Government Support of Seoul District Court (77Gahap50)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

It is confirmed that 6/7 shares of each real estate listed in the attached list are owned by the plaintiff.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant.

원판결을 췬소한다.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be assessed against the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

The plaintiff owned the above deceased's possession of the land listed in the attached list, which was subject to the circumstances of the non-party 1, the plaintiff's scam clinical case at the time of the land situation on April 1916, and completed registration of preservation of ownership in the same name around May 1916. However, the above deceased died on October 8, 1920 and succeeded to the plaintiff's non-party 1, and died on May 5, 1960, the plaintiff succeeded to the 6/7 shares of the land in this case. As the plaintiff died on May 5, 1960, the 6/7 shares of the land was destroyed and lost due to the 6.25 incident, and the defendant applied for the registration of the land cadastre owner at the time of the restoration of the land land cadastre in this case with the guarantor and the related members of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff refused to comply with this, so the plaintiff's claim against the plaintiff for confirmation of ownership.

In light of the contents of evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4 (each copy of land cadastre) without dispute in its establishment and testimony of objection to the witness at the court below, since the land cadastre of this case was lost at the time of 6.25 days before the pleadings, the defendant restored it on Jan. 23, 1963 and restored it, and there is a blank space for the owner's registered matters in its restoration. The plaintiff applied for the registration of the plaintiff's title on the land cadastre of this case with the guarantee of the guarantor who owned the land, but the head of Si/Gun of Si/Gun can recognize the fact that the plaintiff refused the registration for the reason that the matters concerning the owner of land cadastre cannot be restored and registered without any counter-proof evidence. Thus, the act of recording certain matters on the land cadastre is for the convenience of the administrative affairs executor and the certification of facts, which rights are granted due to the registration, and it cannot be seen that there is no legal interest in the restoration of the plaintiff's land as the result of lack of the legal interest in the restoration or removal of the land register.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection is unlawful and dismissed without examining it, and the judgment of the court below is improper and the defendant's appeal is justified. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is revoked, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Judge)