Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Mun Ho-nam munonam@
[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that to reclaim ancestral land that became state-owned due to unclear reasons, one must directly prove errors in the cadastral register and land ledger.
On the 5th, the Second Division of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice Lee Dongwon) announced that it overturned the lower court's ruling in favor of Plaintiff A in the ownership cancellation registration lawsuit against the state and remanded the case to the Uijeongbu District Court.
Previously, in 2019, A filed a lawsuit against the state, claiming that a 125㎡ road in Paju-si, Gyeonggi Province, was originally his ancestral land.
In fact, the land survey register created by the Japanese colonial government in 1913 for the land survey project recorded A's great-grandfather as the owner. Even in the cadastral register restored in 1961 after being destroyed during the Korean War, A's great-grandfather was listed as the owner. However, the land ledger created in 1978 noted the land as "owner not restored," and in 1996, it became state-owned land.
A argued that since there was no clear basis for changing the land ledger, it should be seen as having been modified due to a public official's error. On the other hand, the government countered that the land had been possessed by the state for over 20 years since it was designated as a national road in 1981, completing the acquisition by prescription.
The first and second trials ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating, "There is no evidence to recognize that the state lawfully acquired the land." This was because, although A was registered as the owner in the land survey register, the state did not submit clear evidence of the subsequent change in ownership.
However, the Supreme Court ordered a retrial and reconsideration of the case. The court stated, "The burden of proof for special circumstances such as errors in the cadastral register caused by public officials lies with the party asserting it," and added, "Even if the defendant cannot submit documents related to the land acquisition procedure, considering the possession history and usage, it cannot be ruled out that lawful procedures were followed at the time of land division and classification change to acquire ownership."
Furthermore, "the lower court erred in its understanding of the presumption of possession and this affected the judgment," the court added.
© The Asia Business Daily(www.asiae.co.kr). All rights reserved.
