Plaintiff (Law Firm Aba, Attorneys Yoon-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na14477 delivered on May 1, 201

June 28, 2016

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Gadan98020 Decided March 25, 2015

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant will implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of the true name with respect to each of the 6/27 shares of each real estate listed in the attached list.

1. Quotation of the first instance judgment

The reasoning of this court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "Nos. 8-27 through 29 of the evidence Nos. 8-27 through 29 of the evidence Nos. 8-29 of the judgment of the court of first instance" and Nos. 14 of the evidence Nos. 8-27 through 29 of the evidence Nos. 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the plaintiff's new argument at the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for adding the following judgment as to the new argument at the court of first instance according to Nos.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

4) Whether the effect of each of the instant registrations of ownership preservation affects the presumption of each of the instant registrations of ownership transfer

A) The plaintiff's assertion

Each of the instant lands constitutes real estate for the recovery of the owner, and the de facto owner of real estate for the recovery of the previous owner, which was amended by Act No. 3562, Apr. 3, 1982, cannot register the preservation of ownership under the said Act, and each of the instant lands is invalid because it was completed by the Act prior to the said amendment, and is not recognized as probable.

B) Determination

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff seeks the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name against the Defendant, the Plaintiff should prove not only each of the instant registrations, but also that each of the instant registrations in the name of the Defendant is null and void. In a case where each of the instant registrations is null and void due to the reversal of the presumption power on the ground of the Plaintiff’s assertion, we examine whether each of the instant registrations of ownership transfer

Even if a person who completed registration pursuant to the Act on Special Measures claims that he/she has acquired a right in accordance with a letter of guarantee or written confirmation, if he/she asserts that he/she has acquired a right in accordance with the other grounds for acquisition, the assertion itself cannot make a registration in accordance with the Act on Special Measures, unless there exist special circumstances, such as where the content of his/her assertion is clear that he/she cannot make a registration in accordance with the Act on Special Measures, or where it is obvious that he/she is a dead body, it cannot be deemed that the presumption of registration made in accordance with the Act on Special Measures cannot be said to have been broken, and only if it is proven that the fact that a new ground for acquisition has been asserted by other materials is not true, the presumption of registration has been broken (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da59025, Apr.

As above, in light of the fact that the Special Measures Act permits registration inconsistent with the actual cause for acquisition, the Defendant asserts that the registration of ownership transfer of this case and each registration of ownership transfer of this case is completed based on the title trust relation, unlike the registration of each ownership transfer of this case and the written confirmation, and as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the letter of guarantee and written confirmation, which form the basis for each ownership transfer registration of this case, were false or forged, or that the Defendant’s assertion related to each ownership transfer of this case was proven to be not true, and thus, even if each registration of ownership transfer of this case is invalidated, the presumption ability of each

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Yong-han (Presiding Judge)