Orse Iron (Attorney Lee Yong-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

June 20, 2006

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Da81855 Decided October 6, 2005

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Claim: The defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name against the land size of 451-1 3,772 square meters in the case of Gyeonggi-do composition of Gyeonggi-do.

2. Purport of appeal: Revocation of the judgment of the first instance, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

The following facts can be acknowledged if Gap evidence 1, evidence 2, and evidence 3-1, evidence 4-1, 2, evidence 5-1 through 7, evidence 6-1 through 4, evidence 7-1 through 5, evidence 8-1 through 16, evidence 8-1 through 10, and evidence 10 are added to the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. In the case of the Gyeonggi-do Eup, the Dogdong-ri 451 Sig-ri 1,547 was assessed in accordance with the Joseon land order.

B. The cadastral record of the above land was destroyed due to a disaster on June 25, 1953, and thereafter, the above land was partitioned into 451-1,141 square meters (3,772 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”) around March 20, 1953 as well as 451-2 and 406 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. The Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership on the instant land as the Suwon District Court's Suwon District Court's registry office on March 11, 1969, No. 1038.

D. On August 27, 197, the Austria died and succeeded to the property of the Republic of Korea, the Austria, the children of the son, the son, the son, the son, the son, the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the son’s children of the 19.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, in order to obtain the ownership of the land of this case, which was divided into the land of this case due to the division of inherited property division, the plaintiff independently inherited the land of this case, under the circumstances in Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, Eup/Myeon, Do, 451, 1,547, and the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of the above registration of ownership preservation, unless there are any special circumstances, since the registration of cancellation of ownership preservation was completed without the reason for the registration of cancellation of the defendant's name completed on March 11, 1969 by Suwon District Court, Mawon-si, Mawon-gun, Mawon-gun, Masan-gun, Masan-gun, Masan-si, Mawon-si, Masan-si, Mawon-si, Mawon-si,

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's assertion

In regard to this, the defendant claimed that the land was included in the building of the Dongdong reservoir in 1945, 1,547 as the land for which the construction was carried out at the expense of 70% the country and 30% the prop as part of the plan for expansion of water sources for emergency expansion by means of a reservoir constructed in 1945, and the agency which performed the construction of a reservoir has purchased the private land included in the site for the facility at that time and constructed the facility at that time, but the administrative agency did not take administrative procedures for transfer of ownership as the related documents were lost due to the incident on March 11, 1969. Thus, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was completed in the name of the defendant as seen earlier, and the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant is legitimate registration consistent with the substantive relations.

B. Determination

Therefore, according to the statements in Eul, Eul evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 2-1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 6-9, and Eul evidence Nos. 10 and 6-9, it can be acknowledged that the Dongposium construction was conducted under the supervision of Gyeonggi-do in 1945 in terms of Gyeonggi-do. The land in this case is the site of a reservoir, and the land in this case is being used as the site of a reservoir at 451-2, 406, respectively. However, with regard to the fact that the Dongposium construction was promoted as part of the Emergency Expansion Project Plan, it is insufficient to acknowledge it only by the statement in Eul No. 10, and there is no other evidence.

Rather, according to Gap evidence Nos. 9 and Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 5, 1957 for the above 451-2 land in the name of the defendant. Since the farmland was distributed and the ownership transfer registration was completed on September 3, 1963, it can be recognized that the above 40-100-10-10-100-40-100-10-14 of the Enforcement Decree of the Joseon Dynasty was not based on the above facts that the above 45-14-10-10-10-10-100-10-14 of the Act was not based on the circumstance that the above 5-14-14-100-10-10-14 of the Act was not based on the fact that the land was actually used for farming at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, since it was not based on the fact that the above 4-5-14-10-10000-10-10-10-10-10-2 of the above land.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted as it is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge) and Jin-hun