Whether a person who succeeds to a project from a project operator of land expropriation has a benefit in the protection of rights seeking the implementation of procedures for registration of transfer of ownership due to land expropriation.

According to Article 115 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, registration of transfer of ownership due to the expropriation of land can be applied only by a person entitled to registration. Meanwhile, according to Article 6 of the Land Expropriation Act or an order issued pursuant to this Act, the rights or obligations of a person entitled to registration of transfer of ownership due to the expropriation of land are stipulated to be transferred to the successor of the business. Thus, even according to the above Plaintiff’s design itself, it is evident that the Plaintiff, who succeeded to the business through the above Plaintiff’s establishment, can solely file an application for registration of transfer of ownership due to the expropriation of land pursuant to the provisions of the said Registration of Real Estate Act, without being able to file an application for registration of transfer of ownership

Article 115 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 6 of the Land Expropriation Act

International Tourism Organization

Defendant

The civil district court of the first instance (66A12819)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The action shall be dismissed.

All litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff through the first and second trials.

On July 14, 1962, the Defendant sought that the Plaintiff implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the expropriation of land on the real estate entered in the list attached to the original judgment.

The defendant¡¯s attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

First, we examine ex officio whether there is a benefit in protecting the rights of the plaintiff.

The non-party, who is the Minister of Construction and Transportation at the time of May 1, 1962, as of May 1, 1962, was a public project operator for the purpose of using the land located in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seoul, including the land in this case under his possession as a site for tourist facilities to cover-up, and obtained approval from the Administrator of the National Land Construction Agency. On May 10, 1962, after completion of the public notice of detailed land items on the above land and filed an application for adjudication with the Central Land Expropriation Commission on May 12, 1962. As a result, on July 4, 1962, the committee rendered a ruling to expropriate the land in this case on July 14, 1962, the Minister of Construction and Transportation deposited the above compensation amount of KRW 363,400 on July 14, 1962, and succeeded to the above business as a public project operator, and the defendant succeeded to the land in this case to the non-party corporation.

However, according to Article 115 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, registration of transfer of ownership due to the expropriation of land can be applied only by the person entitled to registration. Meanwhile, according to Article 6 of the Land Expropriation Act and Article 6 of the Land Expropriation Act, the rights and obligations of the business owner under this Act are transferred to the successor to the business. Thus, even according to the above plaintiff's assertion itself, the plaintiff who succeeded to the business through the construction project owner's association from the Minister of Construction and Transportation. It is clear that the successor to the rights and obligations of the business owner can solely file an application for registration of transfer of ownership due to the expropriation of land pursuant to the above Registration of Real Estate Act.

Therefore, a claim for objection against the defendant for the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration due to land expropriation cannot be said to have no benefit in the protection of rights.

Therefore, even though this lawsuit has to be dismissed, the original judgment has different conclusions, so the original judgment is unfair, and the costs of appeal are to be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per the Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Judge)