소유권이전등기말소
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The plaintiffs' claims added in the trial are dismissed.
3...
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the parties add the following judgments as to the matters additionally asserted in the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiffs’ claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case is a claim for recovery of inheritance, and that the Plaintiffs knew of the fact that they infringed their inheritance rights to each of the instant real estate by stating that “Defendant D disposed of each of the instant real estate” from the investigator of the Chuncheon District Court around 2006, and that the lawsuit of this case was filed on May 23, 201, for which three years have passed thereafter, and thus, the lawsuit of this case was unlawful.
"Date of knowing the infringement of the right to inheritance" under Article 999(2) of the Civil Act, which is the starting point of the exclusion period of the right to claim recovery of inheritance, refers to the time when one knows that he/she is the true inheritor and knows the fact that he/she is excluded from inheritance, so it is not sufficient to presume or refer to the presumption of infringement of the right to inheritance. When the infringement of the right to inheritance is known, it shall be reasonably acknowledged in consideration of various objective circumstances in individual cases and circumstances in which the claim for recovery
(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da36223 Decided October 25, 2007). Then, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff A had known about the infringement of his inheritance rights to each of the real estate of this case in around 2006. <2> The following circumstances are as follows, namely, the plaintiff B and C’s Busan District Court Decision 2008Da140514 case and Chuncheon District Court Decision 201Da1677 Decided witness examination.