The case holding that it does not constitute a voluntary return of concealed State property to the State solely on the ground that the registered titleholder voluntarily cancelled the registration, etc. in spite of the failure to cancel the registration, even though winning the lawsuit for cancellation of registration of ownership transfer filed by the State against the registered titleholders of concealed State property.

The registration of the title of the concealed state-owned real estate in a lawsuit for cancellation of the above registration was finalized in order to recover the ownership after purchasing the title holder in the registry of the concealed state-owned real estate as the true owner and completing the registration of ownership transfer, but the above registration was not cancelled without cancelling the above registration. Thus, even if the purchaser voluntarily submitted the judgment to the person in charge of sale of state-owned property who was in charge of sale of state-owned property and submitted the judgment to cancel the registration of the title, and the registration of the title was paid for the property tax and other public charges by occupying the said real estate during that period, it cannot

Articles 53 and 53-2 of the State Property Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Korea

Busan High Court Decision 90Na11219 delivered on March 21, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. In light of the records, we affirm the fact-finding of the court below in light of the records, and it cannot be said that it was concluded by using a printed paper (Evidence A No. 3) on the State-owned property sales contract of this case between the original and the defendant, and it cannot be an obstacle to the fact-finding like the court below's decision, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the probative value or admissibility of evidence as to disposal documents such as theory of lawsuit, or by

2. According to the facts established by the court below, the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case, which is a state property concealed on April 28, 1970, from Non-party 1, who was the title holder on the registry, and completed the registration of ownership transfer after purchasing it as the true owner, but the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff, etc. for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, etc. to recover this, and the decision was rendered by the Daegu High Court on February 8, 1978 and became final and conclusive on July 19, 1989, and the registration of ownership transfer was cancelled on July 19, 1989. In this case, even if the defendant did not cancel the registration of the plaintiff's name on the registry, he submitted the decision that the plaintiff was in custody to the person in charge of the sale of state property of Busan District Office around July 1986 or around July 19, 198, and submitted the decision to cancel the ownership transfer registration under the plaintiff's title to the State property of this case, it cannot be seen as the plaintiff's property tax was voluntarily paid.

3. Therefore, there is no reason to issue the issue.

Therefore, the 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.

Justices Lee Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)