[1] Whether a person registered as a person who acquired or acquired ownership from the State in the forestry cadastral book prepared under the former Rules on the Forestry cadastral book may be presumed to have completed the registration of transfer of ownership of the forest (negative)

[2] Whether an occupant of an unregistered real estate acquires ownership of such real estate without registration only with the completion of the prescription period for possession (negative)

[1] According to Article 2 of the former Rules of Land Conservation (Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 113 of August 23, 1920), which applies mutatis mutandis under the former Rules of Land Conservation (Ordinance No. 113 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of August 23, 1920), the transfer of ownership to land shall not be registered on the land cadastre unless a registration public official's notice is given. However, the same shall not apply to cases where ownership is transferred due to the non-refluent, exchange, transfer, or expropriation of unregistered land, or cases where unregistered land is owned by a state. Thus, a person who acquired or acquired ownership in the former Rules of Land Conservation (Ordinance No. 113 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of August 25, 1914) can be presumed as a person who acquired or acquired ownership in the relevant forest land in principle

[2] The completion of the period of acquisition by prescription under Article 245(1) of the Civil Act does not directly take effect upon the completion of the period of acquisition by prescription. However, the right to claim registration for the acquisition of ownership is only effective on the ground of such right, and it cannot be deemed that the possessor acquires the ownership even without registration on the sole basis of the completion of the period of acquisition

[1] Article 186 of the Civil Act, Article 2 of the former Rules on the Forestry Ledger (Ordinance of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries No. 113 of August 23, 1920), Article 2 of the former Rules on Land cadastre (Ordinance of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Fisheries No. 45 of April 25, 1914) / [2] Article 245 (2) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da28638 delivered on October 26, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 3181), Supreme Court Decision 97Da39742 delivered on December 26, 1997 (Gong1998Sang, 495) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 80Da3121 delivered on September 22, 1981 (Gong1981, 14375)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Attorney Jeon Jae-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Intervenor joining the Defendant

○○○○ ○○m clan (Law Firm Cheong, Attorneys Gangwon-gu et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2004Na7056, 2005Na298 decided March 17, 2006

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the independent party intervenor.

1. As to the plaintiffs' appeal

A. The court below rejected the plaintiffs' assertion that the non-party 1's family register was omitted in the process of organizing the forest of this case as the descendants of the non-party 1, the non-party 2 and the non-party 3, whose owner was entered in the land cadastre of this case, and who succeeded to the forest of this case from the non-party 3, who succeeded to the Dong from the death of the non-party 1: Provided, That the non-party 2 and the non-party 3 were omitted in the process of organizing the family register destroyed by the non-party 1's family register due to a war 6.25, etc., taking full account of the evidence, including the non-party 1's family register register, the non-party 1's family register book was compiled and prepared with continuity since 1893, and the non-party 1 died on January 31, 193, and the non-party 4 [the non-party 4's father]'s son and the non-party 1's son 2 and the non-party 3's non-party 1's inheritance evidence.

In the reasoning of the judgment below, it is inappropriate for the court below to state that "the non-party 2, as alleged by the plaintiffs, is not a successor to Australia, unless it is indicated in the family register of the non-party 1's own loss, even though non-party 1 actually remains the head of the family register." However, as seen above, as long as the non-party 2 did not have any evidence to recognize that he is the non-party 1's own loss, it cannot be said

B. The court below, after compiling the adopted evidence, found facts as stated in the judgment, and judged that the independent party intervenor (hereinafter "convenor") was a clan with a unique meaning established naturally by making the △△△3 19 years old descendants a common vessel. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence.

2. As to the appeal by the Intervenor against the clan

A. According to Article 2 of the former Rules of Land Conservation (Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 113 of Aug. 23, 1920), which applies mutatis mutandis under the former Rules of Land Conservation (Ordinance No. 113 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of Apr. 25, 1914), the transfer of ownership to land shall not be registered on the land cadastre unless a registration public official's notice is given. However, the same shall not apply to cases where ownership is transferred due to non-refluence, exchange, transfer, or expropriation of unregistered land, or cases where unregistered land is State-owned. Thus, a person who acquired or acquired ownership in the former Forestry Conservation Act can be presumed, in principle, to have completed the registration of ownership transfer of the relevant forest and land, but if the former owner is a State, it cannot be presumed that he/she obtained State-owned land from the State (the State). However, it can be presumed that the former owner was a State-owned land from the State (the State).

According to the selected evidence, the court below determined that the forest land in this case was divided and transferred on August 30, 1929 by Non-party 1 in the name of Non-party 1, although it can be presumed that the forest land in this case was fired, exchanged, and transferred on August 30, 1929, the forest land in this case was registered in the name of the State (the State) on November 10, 1914, and that the accident (accident) accident in the old land cadastre of this case was recorded as a transfer of ownership from Non-party 1 on August 30, 1929. In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is justified and it cannot be said that the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of Non-party 1 in this case on the sole basis of this fact.

B. Article 245(1) of the Civil Act provides that “A person who occupies real estate in peace and openly with an intention to own it for twenty (20) years shall acquire its ownership by filing for registration.” Thus, the completion of the acquisition period does not immediately take effect upon the acquisition of ownership, but the right to claim for registration for the acquisition of ownership by reason of the completion of the acquisition period (see Supreme Court Decision 80Da3121, Sept. 22, 1981). However, in the case of unregistered real estate, it cannot be deemed that the possessor acquires its ownership without registration even with the completion of the acquisition period solely on the basis of the completion of the acquisition period. Therefore, the allegation in

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Ji-hyung (Presiding Justice)