B. Whether the registered titleholder has become final and conclusive in the lawsuit claiming cancellation of ownership transfer registration, and whether he has acted in bad faith and negligence with respect to the possession of purchaser from the same person (negative)

C. Purport of Article 245(2) of the Civil Act

(d) the explanation of the reasons for the rejected evidence;

E. In the case of fact-finding based on comprehensive evidence, whether the evidence is specified (negative)

(f) A case where possession cannot be viewed as possession independently in the nature of the source;

G. Whether in a lawsuit demanding cancellation of the ownership transfer registration made in sequence, the execution of the procedure for cancellation can be ordered only by the preceding priority registration (affirmative)

B. Even if the first instance court of the lawsuit claiming the cancellation of ownership transfer registration has become final and conclusive, the person who purchased and possessed the real estate can not be deemed to have been maliciously or negligent in the possession thereof.

(c) The acquisition by prescription under Article 245(2) of the Civil Act shall apply to cases where ten years have elapsed as at the time both the possession and registration were made.

D. In a case where the court does not adopt any evidence as the material for fact-finding, it is not necessary to explain the specific reasons for rejection and satisfaction.

E. In the case of a comprehensive determination of evidence, the contradictory and unnecessary parts of each evidence are removed, necessary, and they are used in the judgment materials, so it is reasonable to deem that the value of evidence is unjustifiable even if there is no specification that the remaining parts of the evidence contents conflict with the recognized facts are not adopted in particular. Therefore, there is no error of law because there is no specification that the part inconsistent with the recognized facts should be rejected.

(f) Where (A) has made a registration of recovery under his/her own name with the relevant documents related to false details that he/she purchased from the owner on the basis that the public portion of the land has been destroyed, the person referred to in (A) shall not be deemed to have occupied the land from the time when the recovery is registered in view of the nature of the title.

G. In a case where each procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which has been made in a successive manner, is requested, and even if it is impossible to enforce the cancellation registration because the request for cancellation of subordinated registration is not accepted, if it is recognized that the procedure for cancellation of the preceding priority registration is liable to implement in relation to the former priority registration holder, it should be ordered to implement the procedure.

[This Court en banc Decision 89.12.26∑ 2176]

The costs of appeal by the plaintiffs are assessed against the plaintiffs, and the costs of appeal by the above defendants are assessed against the same defendants.

In the sale of real estate, there is a circumstance to suspect the title of the seller in light of the transactional concept, so the buyer cannot be deemed to have commenced the possession of the real estate without any negligence even though he takes over the real estate in good faith, unless the purchaser confirms the truth about the title of the owner on the registry. However, in the case where the title holder on the registry and the seller are the same person, the purchaser of the real estate shall be deemed to be the possessor without any special reason. In this case where there are no special circumstances to suspect the title of the seller on the registry, in light of the evidence of the original judgment, it shall not be deemed that there is negligence on the defendants who bought the title holder on the registry and purchased the title holder on the register from the deceased non-party 1 who is the title holder on the registry and purchased the title holder on the register from the former as the true right holder, and purchased the title holder on the first instance of the lawsuit from the latter, even though the former's heir or the former title holder on the registry lost the judgment of the court of first instance on the lawsuit of this case, it shall not be justified in the judgment of the court below.

In addition, Article 245 (2) of the Civil Act applies to cases where ten years have passed since possession and registration were made together, and the judgment of the court below is examined. On the other hand, the court below rejected the defendant's claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration under the name of the defendant 1 and the defendant 3's own ownership transfer registration under the attached Table 6 (b) of the court below's decision as to the above part of the real estate of this case, on the ground that the above defendants purchased the ownership from the time of transfer registration under their names and the ownership transfer registration was completed for ten years, the court below rejected the defendant's above claim for cancellation of the prescription registration under the same purport that the deceased non-party 2, who is the title holder of the above registration, was not the owner of the above attached Table 6 (a) and it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the above part of the defendant's claim for cancellation of the prescription registration under the name of the court below, and it did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principle as to the above part of the defendant's claim for cancellation.

Therefore, the appeal by the plaintiffs is without merit.

2. We examine the grounds for appeal by the attorney Kim Jong-chul, including Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant Seoul Trust Bank, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, and Defendant 10.

A. As to No. 1:

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below as to the theory of lawsuit are acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of experience or logic, such as adopting the evidence without credibility in light of the rules of experience or logic, and misleads the selection of evidence. In the case of the comprehensive determination of evidence as the testimony of non-party 4, the testimony of non-party 4 as a witness is employed as part of the comprehensive evidence, such as other evidence cited by the court below, removal of the contradictory and unnecessary parts among each evidence, and the joint use of the evidence for the determination of the evidence is necessary, and the remaining parts of the evidence, which conflict with the fact-finding, are shared with the determination materials, so it is reasonable to view that the value of evidence is unfair even if there is no express statement that the court below does not adopt any part of the evidence which conflict with the above fact-finding among the contents of evidence, and therefore there is no error like the theory of lawsuit since the court below did not specify any part of the above testimony that it is inconsistent with the facts-finding.

B. As to No. 2

In light of the records, the court below's rejection of the defendants' 20-year statute of limitations defense, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence which affected the conclusion of the judgment, such as the theory of lawsuit. The court below's decision on the lawsuit does not purport to reject each witness's testimony pointing out that the theory of lawsuit was not judged, and even if the non-party 1, as alleged by the defendants, started possession of the real estate of this case from the time when the restoration registration was completed as against the defendant, as long as the court below's decision was lawful, the real estate of this case was owned by the deceased non-party 5. The real estate of this case was owned by the deceased non-party 5, and the ownership relation was destroyed by the 6.25 incident, and was purchased by the deceased non-party 6 from the above non-party 5. Thus, the court below's decision did not err in the misapprehension of the statute of limitations defense as to this case's possession of the real estate of this case.

C. As to No. 3:

In the event that each procedure for cancelling ownership transfer registration is instituted in a successive manner, even if it is impossible to implement the procedure for cancelling registration of the subordinate registration because the request for cancelling registration of the subordinate registration is not accepted, if the execution of the procedure for cancelling registration of the subordinate registration is impossible, it shall be ordered to implement the procedure for cancelling registration of the subordinate registration. In this case, in relation to the shares of real estate in the lawsuit against Defendant 1, who is the last registrant, the court below accepted the claim for cancelling registration of this part, and dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for cancelling registration of this part, while rejecting the claim for cancelling registration of this part, the court below rejected the above claim for cancelling registration of the plaintiffs against Nonparty 7, who is the first registrant of the lawsuit against Defendant 8, who is the title registrant of the preceding order, by rejecting the claim for cancelling registration of the plaintiffs. In this case

3. Defendant 1’s ground of appeal is examined.

In light of the records, the judgment of the court below and its determination on the points of the theory are acceptable, and it cannot be said that there is no violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error of law by misconceptioning facts against the rules of evidence, and by misunderstanding the reasoning of the judgment or misunderstanding of facts. The arguments are without merit, as they are attributable to the misunderstanding of evidence preparation and fact-finding belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below.

4. As to Defendant 11’s appeal:

The appeal shall not be dismissed in accordance with Article 399 of the Civil Procedure Act, since there is no statement in the grounds of appeal in the petition of appeal and no statement in the grounds of appeal is filed within the prescribed period

5. Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiffs and appeals by the defendant 1, 5, 6, defendant trust bank, defendant trust bank, defendant 8, 9, 10, and 11 are dismissed, and the costs of appeals are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices O Sung-sung(Presiding Justice)