Korea Rural Community Corporation (Attorney Lee Sang-gil, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea

August 10, 2017

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Defendant Republic of Korea confirms that a ditch of Daegu Dong-gu ( Address 2 omitted), 96 square meters is each ownership of the successors indicated in the separate shares of inheritance calculation sheet.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 2, 1911, Daegu Dong-gu (No. 2 omitted), a ditch of 96 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) was examined on August 2, 191 in the name of Nonparty 1 (name 1 omitted) and the achievement group (name 1 omitted), and the present state of not having been registered.

However, while the land cadastre of the instant land was transferred from the former land cadastre to the card form register, the owner’s name in the column was erroneously recorded as Nonparty 8 (Korean Chinese name 2 omitted).

B. On December 13, 2006, the Defendant corrected ex officio the clerical error in the owner’s land cadastre column of this case’s land cadastre from “Nonindicted 8” to “Nonindicted 1.”

C. On the other hand, the Coastal Repair Cooperative purchased the instant land from Nonparty 1 on January 1938 and occupies it as the site for the coast water line.

D. On January 1, 200, the Coastal Repair Cooperative was merged with the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation. On December 29, 2005, the name of the Korea Agricultural and Rural Infrastructure Corporation was changed to the Korea Agricultural and Rural Community Corporation. The name of the Korea Rural Community Corporation was changed again on December 29, 2008.

E. In this case, the Plaintiff filed a claim against Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 7, who is Nonparty 1’s inheritor, for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on November 4, 2016. The decision of recommending reconciliation was finalized to accept all the Plaintiff’s claims against the said inheritor.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, Eul's 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the benefit of confirmation

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The land cadastre of this case does not state the address of Nonparty 1, and only it is written as “salk-gun (location omitted)” on the former land cadastre and does not state it. Accordingly, the registration of preservation of ownership cannot be completed in the name of Nonparty 1 or his heir solely on the land cadastre of this case. The Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation that the land of this case was owned by Nonparty 1’s heir on behalf of Nonparty 1 as the claimant for registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case.

(b) Markets:

1) Relevant legal principles

According to Article 65 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, a person registered as the first owner in the land cadastre, forest land cadastre or building register, his/her heir, or other general successor, may apply for registration of preservation of ownership of unregistered land, and any person who is unable to produce such certification is entitled to apply for registration of preservation of ownership by proving his/her ownership by virtue of a final judgment. However, in cases where part of the indication of owners on the land cadastre of unregistered land is omitted and it is impossible to identify the owners on the register, the owner is not entitled to registration of preservation of ownership by the register, and there is a benefit to seek confirmation of ownership of the relevant land against the State for registration of preservation of ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da34390, Jul. 10, 201, etc.

2) Determination on the instant case

According to the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 1, 2, 1, and 2, it is recognized only when the land of this case is currently unregistered and the fact that Nonparty 1 was under the circumstance of Nonparty 1, the address and resident registration number of Nonparty 1, etc. are not indicated in the land cadastre.

In this case, the Defendant recognized the fact that the title holder of the land of this case was Nonparty 1 (date of birth omitted) who had his/her permanent domicile in the ○○○○○-do ( Address omitted) in the Gyeongbuk-do, and his/her heir was Nonparty 2, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 7.

Therefore, as to the land of this case, the owner on its land cadastre is specified, and the defendant does not dispute this, the plaintiff has no interest in seeking confirmation of ownership of the land of this case against the defendant.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the plaintiff's claim of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Young-young