logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 1976. 12. 28. 선고 76다1422 판결
[소유권이전등기말소][공1977.2.1.(553),9831]
Main Issues

(a) Whether it is legitimate to register the restoration in the name of Japanese person who is the owner on the registry before the registry is destroyed or lost because the person handles the property devolving upon the registry erroneously;

B. Whether a person can seek confirmation of ownership of the real estate where the period prescribed in Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Act has elapsed without completing registration of the time limit even though a favorable judgment was rendered in favor of the claim before the Civil Act enters into force

Summary of Judgment

1. Even if it is not a property devolving upon the State, a disposition for recovery registration is justified in the name of Japan, the title holder at the time of loss of the registry; and

2. Even if the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the central land administration office to file a claim for ownership transfer registration on the ground that the instant land did not belong to property before the enforcement of the Civil Act, and the judgment in favor of the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, if the period under Article 10 of the Addenda of the Civil Act has expired without completing the registration based on it, the owner

Plaintiff-Appellant

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant-Appellee

Korea

original decision

Seoul High Court Decision 75Na1810 decided May 12, 1976

Text

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The judgment of the court below held that even if the plaintiff purchased the building site of this case from the Japanese buyer on March 25, 194 and did not complete the registration, the ownership transfer registration based on the above order of the defendant was reverted to the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs pursuant to the Military Affairs Act and subordinate statutes. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration against the Central Land Administration Agency established under the Military Affairs Act and subordinate statutes on the ground that the land will not belong to the property belonging to the original court, and the above Japanese buyer was purchased at the same time, but the registration was affirmed upon winning the court's decision in favor of the plaintiff on the ground that the above registration was not completed due to June 25, 1954, the defendant could not be viewed as the property belonging to the above Japanese government and the above fact that the ownership transfer registration was not completed under the above order of the defendant's subrogation, and the court below's decision that the above ownership transfer registration cannot be viewed as valid for the plaintiff's restoration registration based on the premise that the above ownership transfer registration was not completed.

Therefore, the appeal of this case is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Articles 400, 395, and 384(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and the cost of appeal shall be borne by all Justices who reviewed the appeal in accordance with Articles 95 and 89 of the same Act. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yang Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)

arrow