[1] The case where a claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State has a benefit of confirmation

[2] Whether a person who obtained registration of ownership transfer in the land cadastre or forest land cadastre can apply for registration of ownership preservation immediately in his/her future (negative)

[3] The case holding that in case where a person who received ownership transfer on the land cadastre of unregistered land is registered but the first owner is not registered, there is a benefit in confirming the claim against the State for confirmation of ownership transfer against the person who received the registration of ownership transfer on the above land cadastre

[1] A claim for confirmation of land ownership against the State shall be limited to the cases where the land is unregistered and its registrant is unknown on the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre, or where there are special circumstances, such as the State's refusal of ownership by a third party who is the titleholder of the registration or the registration, and the State's continued assertion of ownership, etc.

[2] A registration of preservation of ownership may be applied by a person who proves that the registration was made as an owner on the land cadastre or the forestry cadastral book by a certified copy of the land cadastre or the forestry cadastral book (Article 130 subparagraph 1 of the Registration of Real Estate Act), a person who proves his/her ownership by a judgment (Article 130 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act), a person who acquired ownership by expropriation (Article 13 subparagraph 3 of the same Article). A person who proves that the registration was made on his/her own or his/her own or his/her predecessor’s registry by a certified copy of the land registry (land registry or the forestry cadastral book) is an initial owner in the registry, and even if the registration of ownership transfer was made on the registry, it cannot be said that he/she acquired ownership under the current civil law, which takes the form of a change in real rights. Therefore, a person who received the registration of ownership transfer on the registry cannot apply for the registration of preservation in

[3] The case holding that in case where a person who received ownership transfer on the land cadastre of unregistered land is registered but the first owner is not registered, there is a benefit in confirming the claim against the State for confirmation of ownership transfer against the person who received ownership transfer registration on the above land cadastre

[1] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act / [2] Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 186 of the Civil Act / [3] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 130 of the Registration of Real Estate Act, Article 1

[1] Supreme Court Decision 93Da57704 delivered on March 11, 1994 (Gong1994Sang, 1187) Supreme Court Decision 93Da58738 delivered on December 2, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 424) Supreme Court Decision 95Da14817 delivered on July 25, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2952)

Plaintiff (Uidong Law Firm, Attorneys Kim Hong-chul, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

Suwon District Court Decision 2008Na27841 decided June 10, 2009

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the Plaintiff’s claim that “The land of this case against the Defendant is to confirm whether it is the Plaintiff’s ownership since it was unregistered even if it was owned by the Plaintiff, and thus, it was to obtain registration of ownership preservation under the Plaintiff’s name.” The court below, based on the recruitment evidence, stated “the Plaintiff’s address, Madu Ri (hereinafter referred to as 2 omitted), resident registration number (hereinafter referred to as resident registration number 1 omitted), and name “○○○○○○” on July 12, 1994 (the Plaintiff’s Chinese name is ○○○○○○○○○)’s resident registration number was corrected on July 12, 1994 and indicated “the address of the present land cadastre” (hereinafter parcel number 2 omitted), “resident registration number (hereinafter referred to as “resident registration number 2 omitted),” and “○○○○” on the ground that the Plaintiff’s claim for registration of ownership preservation was unlawful due to the lack of the Plaintiff’s own interest in the land of this case.

However, we cannot accept the above decision of the court below for the following reasons.

A claim for confirmation of ownership against the State can be filed only in cases where the land is unregistered and its registrant is unknown, or where there are special circumstances, such as denying the ownership of a third party who is the title holder of registration, and the State continues to assert ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da58738, Dec. 2, 1994). In addition, registration of ownership preservation can be filed by a certified copy of the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre (Article 130 subparagraph 1 of the Registration of Real Estate Act); a person who proves ownership by a judgment (Article 130 subparagraph 2 of the Registration of Real Estate Act); a person who acquired ownership by expropriation (Article 130 subparagraph 3 of the same Act) and a person who acquired ownership (Article 130 subparagraph 3 of the same Act) (Article 130 of the same Act is an initial owner of the land registry or the forest land cadastre; a person who proves ownership transfer registration in the future by himself/herself or an predecessor of the ownership register is an initial owner and a person who obtained ownership transfer registration under the current comprehensive ownership registration.

According to the records, the plaintiff (○○○) entered the unregistered land in the land cadastre prepared on July 6, 1976 as "Yyeong-si Seo-do Mari (hereinafter referred to as "number 2 omitted)" and the resident registration number "(hereinafter referred to as "resident registration number 1 omitted)" as the owner on January 10, 1945 and the first owner on the register is not registered. In light of the above legal principles, in light of the above legal principles, even if the plaintiff (○○○) entered in the above land cadastre and the plaintiff are the same person, the plaintiff cannot immediately apply for the preservation registration, and if the plaintiff is registered only as the same person on the register, it is reasonable to view that there is a benefit in confirmation as the plaintiff is not registered on the register or when the registrant is unknown.

Nevertheless, the court below dismissed the lawsuit of this case on the grounds that the plaintiff did not have any interest in confirmation. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interest in confirmation in the claim for confirmation for preservation of ownership of land.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)