The case recognizing the presumption power of restoration registration

On the other hand, unless there are any special circumstances, it should be presumed that the registration of restoration of the registration of destruction has been legally processed by the registration public official.

Article 79 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da1485 delivered on November 28, 1978, Supreme Court Decision 78Da1238 delivered on December 26, 1978

Plaintiff-Appellant Kim Yong-jin, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Republic of Korea and four others

Seoul High Court Decision 78Na3013 delivered on July 18, 1979

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined as the first point.

The annexed list of the judgment of the court of first instance includes the land in (1) through (14), and only some of the land in the annexed list of the judgment of the court of first instance is stated in the annexed list of the judgment of the court of first instance, and the judgment of the court of first instance cites the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance as they are. However, the above measures of the court of first instance are justified, and there is no error of incomplete deliberation or incomplete reasoning or incomplete reasoning

The issue is groundless.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 3 are also examined.

All theories do not appear to the effect that the judgment of the court below is criticized on the basis of the preparation of evidence and the recognition of facts which fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the court below, which is the fact-finding court. Thus, even if the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below is examined by the records, it cannot be viewed that there was an error of violating the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, in the process

All arguments are groundless.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 and No. 5 are examined.

If the date of receipt, receipt number, and cause date of registration prior to the registration of recovery of real estate are unknown, it cannot be deemed that the certificate of rights prior to the registration procedure or official document substituted therefor is not attached to the registration procedure. On the other hand, unless the registration of recovery of destruction is entered in the register, it shall be presumed that the registration officer was legally processed (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da1485 delivered on Nov. 28, 1978; Supreme Court Decision 78Da1238 delivered on Dec. 26, 1978). The judgment below to the same effect is just, and it cannot be said that there is any misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the presumption power of registration, such as theory of lawsuit.

We cannot accept all of the arguments as an independent opinion that is discussed in the opposite position.

The ground of appeal No. 4 is examined.

The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the disposal of part of the land of this case to the non-party before the establishment of the government was null and void since the U.S. military political party taken measures all of the property owned by the king after the 8.15 Sea from the reasoning of the judgment. However, it is like a theory of lawsuit that the court below did not make any determination on the part of the evidence No. 4, which seems consistent with the plaintiff's above argument, but it is only a preparatory document of the party in other civil cases, and it should be viewed to the purport that it is nothing more than a preparatory document of the party in other civil cases, and it should be viewed to be rejected in the judgment that the above judgment of the court below did not have any ground for its rejection, and it cannot be said that there was any other rules of evidence, or there is any

The issue is groundless.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. 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 Yong-chul (Presiding Justice)