1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons why the court should explain in this judgment are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is modified as stated in the following Paragraph 2. Thus, it is citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The decision of the court of first instance No. 2.b. written in part; and

2) The public official in charge of entrusting preservation registration on the ground that the real estate was owned by the State in accordance with the laws and regulations has the duty of care to confirm whether there is any ground for nationalization as prescribed by the laws and regulations concerning the real estate subject to registration.

However, even if the reason for nationalization of real estate, which is the basis for the preservation registration, is not recognized as a result, and the registration of real estate is illegal, that alone does not immediately mean that the public official in charge is at fault, and if the average public official in charge of the same work has paid attention to the fact that there is no ground for nationalization as prescribed by the law, the negligence may be recognized when the preservation registration is completed with excessive attention.

In addition, the burden of proof on this is the plaintiff seeking damages for tort.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da100395 Decided October 15, 2014). Furthermore, as seen earlier, the land research division entered D as the assessment of the instant land in the land research division.

However, in light of the following circumstances and the aforementioned legal principles acknowledged by the facts and the evidence admitted earlier, the land investigation division shall have an average public official in charge of the same duties on August 3, 1981, only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, stating D as being subject to the assessment of the land of this case.