신탁해지로인한 소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
1. Basic facts
A. As to the Daejeon Dong-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City 401.7 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), co-ownership registration is made, as shown in the details of changes in the instant land share, as shown in attached Table 3.
Of the registered titleholders, D, E, H, F, and G died before and after the instant lawsuit was filed, and accordingly, their inheritors inherited their co-ownership shares as indicated in attached Table 3.
B. Of the instant land, the Plaintiff occupies the part of 79.8 square meters in the “bb” (hereinafter “bb”) that connects each point of the attached drawings Nos. 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, and 3 in sequence, among the instant land.
[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11 (if there are provisional numbers, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the result of the court of the first instance commissioned to conduct a survey and appraisal to the Daejeon Vice Governor of the Daejeon National Land Information Corporation, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion
A. At the time of the Korean War, the South Korean Refugees were living in the Dong-gu Daejeon-dong, Daejeon-gu, and the North Korean Refugees were living in the land owned by the State.
Defendant Republic of Korea rejected each land by specifying the location and size of each person who resided in the land owned (hereinafter referred to as “previous land”).
B. Defendant Republic of Korea completed the registration of ownership transfer as a co-ownership share with respect to the entire land for convenience without allowing each owner to divide the previous land including the land in this case for each owner.
As above, those who completed the registration of equity had completed the registration of equity interest again to the buyer thereafter.
C. The Plaintiff is divided into two parts. The Plaintiff and the Defendants are in a mutual title trust relationship with respect to the two parts.
The Plaintiff terminated the mutual title trust relationship with the Defendants by serving the application for modification of the purport of the claim on June 29, 2016.
Therefore, the Defendants’ respective co-ownership share in the Plaintiff is a duplicate of the application to modify the above claim.