In cases where the person himself/herself or the predecessor has not been registered in the future and the ownership is not acquired by law, whether a request for registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of the real name of registration against the present registered titleholder is made (negative)

A request for registration of transfer of ownership based on the restoration of the true title of registration is for the implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership directly against the current registered titleholder in order for the person who has already been registered in his/her own name or acquired ownership pursuant to the law to restore the true title of registration. Therefore, if the land was not registered in his/her name or in the future of the decedent, and if the ownership is not acquired by the law, the implementation of the procedure for registration

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 89Meu12398 Decided November 27, 1990 (Gong1991, 189) (Gong189), Supreme Court Decision 88Meu20026 Decided December 21, 1990 (Gong1991, 578), Supreme Court Decision 91Da35175 Decided January 21, 1992 (Gong192,894)

Plaintiff 1 and 4 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Defendant 1 and 3 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee

Busan District Court Decision 92Na4175 delivered on October 9, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

A claim for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of the true name is sought against the current registered titleholder in order for a person who has already been registered in his own future or who has acquired ownership pursuant to the law to restore the true name of registration. Thus, as determined by the court below, if the land of this case was not registered in the future of the plaintiffs or the deceased non-party, who is his predecessor, and the ownership was not acquired pursuant to the law, the plaintiffs cannot seek the implementation of the direct ownership transfer registration procedure for the restoration of the true name of registration. Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just and there is no

Since it is clear that the land in this case is not farmland under Article 6 subparagraph 4, 5, or 6 of the Farmland Reform Act, there is no room for applying the proviso of Article 16 of the same Act.

The assertion is nothing more than a ground for appeal against the judgment of the court below, or a different view.

Therefore, all appeals are 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.