[1] Whether the presumption of right is recognized in a case where the land survey division is registered as a landowner under a land survey project prior to the enforcement of the former Land Survey Decree (affirmative)

[2] Where a male who is not the head of a household dies before the Civil Code enters into force, custom on property inheritance

[1] A person registered in the Land Survey Board as a landowner shall be deemed to have been assessed as a landowner unless there is any counter-proof such as the change of the situation by the adjudication, and the circumstances are presumed to have become final and conclusive. The Addenda of the former Land Survey Decree (Ordinance No. 2 of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport No. 13, 1912) provides that “dispositions, speeds, and other actions conducted under the previous provisions shall be deemed to have been conducted under this Ordinance.” Thus, even in a case where the land survey Board was registered as a landowner by the land survey project prior to the former Land Survey Decree, unless there is any counter-proof, such circumstance shall be presumed to have been

[2] Where a male who is not the head of a household dies before the current Civil Code enters into force, the custom of Korea was to equally inherit the property by the children who are lineal descendants in the same family register.

[1] Article 187 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 100 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1773 delivered on June 10, 1986 (Gong1986, 868) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Da15679 delivered on February 22, 1991 (Gong1991, 1053) Supreme Court Decision 92Da29870 delivered on December 8, 1992 (Gong193, 430)

Plaintiff 1 and 16 others (Attorneys Jeon Soo-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Squa, Attorneys Lee Jae-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Intervenor (Law Firm Squa et al., Counsel for the intervenor-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2005Na10447, 10454 decided July 14, 2006

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant and the Defendants’ Intervenor.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. The misapprehension of legal principles as to the presumption of ownership due to the land situation and the violation of the rules of evidence

A person registered in the Land Survey Board as a landowner shall be presumed to have become final and conclusive, unless there is any counter-proof such as the change of the situation by the adjudication (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu1773, Jun. 10, 1986); and the Addenda of the former Land Survey Decree (Ordinance No. 2, Aug. 13, 1912) provides that “a disposition, speed, and other actions taken by the previous regulations shall be deemed to have been taken by this Ordinance.” Thus, if the land survey Board is registered as a landowner before the previous Decree on Land Survey, the circumstance shall be deemed to have become final and conclusive, unless there is any counter-proof, such as the change of the situation was made in the land survey board by the land survey project, etc., and if it is registered as a landowner at the land cadastre at the time of enforcement of the former Rules on Land Survey (Ordinance No. 45, Apr. 25, 1914). 203Da38, Feb. 39, 1993).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the circumstance of the land before subdivision of this case is deemed to have been conducted by the land survey project, and since the former Land Survey Decree (Ordinance No. 2 of August 13, 1912) stipulates that the land before subdivision of this case is deemed to have been assessed by the deceased non-party 1 on March 25, 1912, and that the above land cadastre was not destroyed since the initial land cadastre was made, and that the above land cadastre is presumed to have been assessed by the deceased non-party 1 on the above date. In full view of the fact that Article 14 of the former Land Survey Act (Act No. 7 of August 23, 1910) of the former Land Survey Act provides that the land before subdivision of this case is defined as the object of the land survey project, and that the land cadastre is not the land cadastre but the land cadastre is written on before subdivision of this case.

The above judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no violation of the legal principles as to the presumption of ownership due to the land situation or violation of the rules of evidence.

2. Legal principles concerning title trust or violation of the rules of evidence

The court below accepted the judgment of the court of first instance that the land prior to the division of this case was indicated as being the situation by Nonparty 1, and thus presumed to be owned by Nonparty 1. The court below rejected the defendants' assertion that Nonparty 2 entrusted the title to Nonparty 1, the South-North Korea, and received the circumstances prior to the division of this case in the name of Nonparty 1. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of the legal principles concerning title trust or violation of the rules of evidence related to the rules of evidence.

3. Legal principles concerning inheritance under the former customary law or violation of the rules of evidence

Where a male who is not a family head dies before the enforcement of the current Civil Code, the custom of Korea was that the inheritance of the same children who are lineal descendants in the same family register was the custom of Korea (see Supreme Court Decisions 90Da15679 delivered on February 22, 191; 92Da29870 delivered on December 8, 192, etc.).

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the non-party 3, 4, and 5, who was a grandchild in the same family register as the non-party 1 at the time of the death of the non-party 1 inherited the land before the division of this case, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles concerning customary inheritance or by

4. Violation of the rules of evidence or misapprehension of the legal principle as to the acquisition by prescription as to autonomous possession

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the defendants' assertion on the prescriptive acquisition on the ground that it is not sufficient to recognize that the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 6, or the defendant's assistant non-party 2, or the defendant's assistant non-party 6, has occupied and managed each of the aforementioned land during the period in which the defendants asserts that the land was divided from the land before the division of this case (hereinafter "21-2 land"). In other words, in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and it is not possible to find any error in the violation of the rules of evidence. Meanwhile, even if the above judgment of the court below, even if the deceased non-party 2, etc. occupied the above 221-2 land after the above judgment, their possession is the possession, and the defendants' assertion on the prescriptive acquisition by prescription is without merit in this respect. Thus, the judgment of the court below on this part of this case is merely a valid judgment, and as long as the court below's primary rejection of possession and management claim by the deceased non-2, etc.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. 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 Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)