2016Da247698 Registration, etc. for cancellation of ownership

A person shall be appointed.

Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea

Law Firm Jungwon, Attorney Jung-won

Attorney Kim Young-young, Lee Young-ju, Park Jong-ju, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Daegu District Court Decision 2016Na301781 Decided August 11, 2016

September 9, 2019

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Even if the name of a person who acquired the ownership of the real estate immediately before the year of August 15, 1945 is a Japanese name, it is right to presume that the title holder is a Korean person who issued the name of the new name of the new name of the new name of the new name of the new name of the new name of the new name of the new name of the new name of the new name of the new name of the new name of the new name of the new name of the new owner of the new name of the new name of the new name of the new owner of the new name of the new name of the new name of the new owner of the new name of the new name of the new name of the new owner of the new name of the new name of the new owner of the new name of the new name of the new owner of the new name of the new name of the new owner of the new name of the new

2. A. The court below held that the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone on the premise that the plaintiff must prove that the plaintiff is a Korean owner of the part in the dispute in this case who was registered on May 8, 1942, who was the owner of the part in the dispute in this case, was not sufficient to recognize that the defendant acquired the part in the dispute in this case, even though it is not

was made.

In light of the above legal principles, since Eul acquired ownership in the dispute part of this case immediately before the piracy is presumed to be the Republic of Korea, in order to determine B as the property devolving upon the dispute part of this case by viewing B as a Japanese person, the defendant who argued B must reverse such presumption by citing the circumstances that can be viewed as a Japanese person. Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the burden of proof on the premise that B is a Korean person, on the premise that the plaintiff must prove that it is a Korean person.

B. Meanwhile, the lower court, based on the circumstances indicated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendant, after completing the registration of ownership transfer for the dispute portion, did not constitute property devolving upon the Plaintiff’s father, occupied the dispute portion through the net F or the Plaintiff without negligence since January 1, 2004, which entered into a loan agreement with the Plaintiff’s father, and that the possession continued for at least ten years and the statute of limitations for the acquisition of the registry was completed on January 1, 2014.

According to the records, for B and E, the owner of the dispute of this case, who was the owner of the dispute of this case, and its nominal owner, there is no information by which his personal information can be verified other than the same address as the lot number of the dispute of this case. Accordingly, the defendant sent a public notice to the network F, who possessed the dispute of this case while proceeding for the reversion of the dispute of this case, and notified him individually that he would file an objection by sending the public notice in the name of J-pony's name. However, even after receiving the above public notice, the networkF did not submit any documents by which the existence of the owner of the dispute and identification can be verified, and the defendant did not belong to the defendant through the public notice of non-real estate, and the defendant started to occupy the dispute of this case through the networkF after concluding the loan contract on January 1, 2004, and thereafter, it can be confirmed that he occupied the dispute of this case indirectly through the networkF.

According to the above circumstances, the part in the dispute in this case does not constitute real estate in which the owner is separately aware of, or all measures that the defendant may take to confirm the existence and identity of the owner are taken, and it can be deemed that the defendant possessed the part in the dispute. Thus, the defendant's negligence in the commencement of possession should be viewed as proved.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the defendant acquired the prescription period for the share in the instant dispute is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on negligence in the acquisition of prescription period for the registry

C. Ultimately, the lower court’s determination that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant regarding the dispute of this case was valid in accordance with the substantive relationship is justifiable, which did not affect the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

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 on the bench.

Justices Kim Jong-hwan

Justices Park Sang-ok

Lee In-bok and Lee In-chul

Justices Noh Jeong-hee