A. The Plaintiff, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 of the land listed in [Attachment List No. 19, 69, 3/42 of the land listed in [Attachment List No. 19, 70, 71 of the land listed in [Attachment List No. 19, 2/42 of the land listed in [Attachment List No. 19], 61 of the 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 of the 67, 2/15 of each land listed in [Attachment List No. 377, 37, 38] of the 69, and 71 of the 615 shares of the 615 shares of the 3/15 of the 615 shares of the 196, 46, and 47 of the 67] of the 60th 37, and the 67 of the appointed parties shall file for registration of ownership transfer.

B. The plaintiff's claims against the Appointor 92, 93, and Appointor 94 are dismissed, respectively.

2. Upon the Plaintiff’s request changed in exchange at the trial, the Appointor 21 will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on March 11, 1957 under the Daejeon District Court Decision 889, which was completed on March 11, 1957, and the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on July 20, 2004, which was completed on July 18384, 2004, with respect to the portion of 3/9 out of the land listed in attached Table No. 54, 22, 23, and 24 out of the land listed in attached Table No. 54.

3. The Plaintiff’s 2, 3, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 4, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 45, 47, 48, 59, 60, 15, 17, 17, 17, 17, 19, 17, 82, 83, 84, 84, 74, 87, 84, 74, 87, 74, 74, 74, 74, 78, 74, 74, 74, 17, 87, 74, 74

4. The independent party intervenor's claims against the plaintiff, the defendant (appointed party) and each designated party's claims in the independent party's participation are all dismissed.

5. According to the plaintiff's acceptance of the lawsuit at the court of the first instance, the parts concerning the Appointors 41, 42, 43, 44, 68, 7, 9, 11, 14, 72, 73, 78, 78, 79, 13, 18, and 20 were modified as follows.

The Plaintiff

(a) As to 3/11 shares of each land listed in paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Schedule, 41 shall apply mutatis mutandis:

(b) With respect to each of the lands listed in paragraphs 4 and 8 of the Schedule 42, 43, 44, 68, 2/11 shares of the Appointor;

(c) As to the land listed in paragraph 12 of the Schedule, 7 shall:

(d) With respect to the land listed in Section 14 of the Schedule, 9:

(e) With respect to each land listed in Schedule 16, 55, listed in Schedule 11:

(f) As to each land listed in separate sheet Nos. 22, 23, and 24:

(g) 72 shares of 7/75 out of each land listed in Schedule 25 and 26 shall be subject to either:

(h) With respect to shares of 12/75 of each of the lands listed in Schedule 25 and 26, 73, 78, and 79, 12/75,

(i) Selections 13 shares in 32/75 of each land listed in Schedule 25 and 26;

(j) With respect to each land listed in Schedule 39, paragraph 41, 18:

(k) With respect to each land listed in separate sheet No. 50, 51, 20

The procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the restoration of each authentic title shall be implemented.

6. The plaintiff shall bear the remaining 36, 37, 38, 40, 70, 69, 71, 62, 64, 66, 67, 21, 226, 222, 36, 23, 36, 37, 38, 39, 47, 49, 67, 247, 47, 28, 27, 47, 28, 64, 67, 28, 64, 67, 47, 68, 67, 28, 69, 69, 62, 62, 63, 64, 667, 264, 267, 264, and 47, 67, and 247, 64, 67, and 14

원고에게, 선정자 2는 별지 목록 제1항 기재 토지에 관하여, 선정자 72, 선정자 73, 선정자 78, 선정자 79, 선정자 13은 별지 목록 제2항 기재 토지 중 각 1/5 지분에 관하여, 선정자 3은 별지 목록 제3항 기재 토지에 관하여, 선정자 41은 별지 목록 제4, 8항 기재 각 토지 중 각 3/11 지분에 관하여, 선정자 42, 선정자 43, 선정자 44, 선정자 68은 별지 목록 제4, 8항 기재 각 토지 중 각 2/11 지분에 관하여, 선정자 25는 별지 목록 제5항 기재 토지 중 21/91 지분에 관하여, 선정자 26, 선정자 27, 선정자 28, 선정자 29는 별지 목록 제5항 기재 토지 중 각 14/91 지분에 관하여, 선정자 92는 별지 목록 제5항 기재 토지 중 6/91 지분에 관하여, 선정자 93, 선정자 94는 별지 목록 제5항 기재 토지 중 각 4/91 지분에 관하여, 선정자 4는 별지 목록 제6항 기재 토지에 관하여, 선정자 30, 선정자 31, 선정자 32는 별지 목록 제7항 기재 토지 중 각 1/3 지분에 관하여, 선정자 33, 선정자 34, 선정자 35는 별지 목록 제9항 기재 토지 중 각 1/3 지분에 관하여, 선정자 5는 별지 목록 제10항 기재 토지에 관하여, 선정자 6은 별지 목록 제11항 기재 토지에 관하여, 선정자 7은 별지 목록 제12항 기재 토지에 관하여, 선정자 8은 별지 목록 제13항 기재 토지에 관하여, 선정자 9는 별지 목록 제14항 기재 토지에 관하여, 선정자 10은 별지 목록 제15항 기재 토지에 관하여, 선정자 11은 별지 목록 제16, 55항 기재 각 토지에 관하여, 선정자 12는 별지 목록 제17항 기재 토지에 관하여, 선정자 13은 별지 목록 제18항 기재 토지에 관하여, 선정자 36, 선정자 37, 선정자 38, 선정자 39, 선정자 40은 별지 목록 제19항 기재 토지 중 각 7/42 지분에 관하여, 선정자 69는 별지 목록 제19항 기재 토지 중 3/42 지분에 관하여, 선정자 70, 선정자 71은 별지 목록 제19항 기재 토지 중 각 2/42 지분에 관하여, 선정자 45, 선정자 46, 선정자 47, 선정자 48, 선정자 59, 선정자 60은 별지 목록 제20항 기재 토지 중 각 1/6 지분에 관하여, 선정자 14는 별지 목록 제22, 23, 24항 기재 각 토지에 관하여, 선정자 72는 별지 목록 제25, 26항 기재 각 토지 중 7/75 지분에 관하여, 선정자 73, 선정자 78, 선정자 79는 별지 목록 제25, 26항 기재 각 토지 중 각 12/75 지분에 관하여, 선정자 13은 별지 목록 제25, 26항 기재 각 토지 중 32/75 지분에 관하여, 선정자 15는 별지 목록 제27, 28항 기재 각 토지에 관하여, 선정자 16은 별지 목록 제29, 30, 31항 기재 각 토지에 관하여, 선정자 17은 별지 목록 제35, 36항 기재 각 토지에 관하여, 선정자 61은 별지 목록 제37, 38항 기재 각 토지 중 3/15 지분에 관하여, 선정자 62, 선정자 63, 선정자 64, 선정자 65, 선정자 66, 선정자 67은 별지 목록 제37, 38항 기재 각 토지 중 각 2/15 지분에 관하여, 선정자 18은 별지 목록 제39 내지 43항 기재 각 토지에 관하여, 피고(선정당사자)는 별지 목록 제46, 47항 기재 각 토지에 관하여, 선정자 19는 별지 목록 제48, 49항 기재 각 토지에 관하여, 선정자 20은 별지 목록 제50, 51항 기재 각 토지에 관하여, 선정자 80은 별지 목록 제52, 53항 기재 각 토지 중 3/13 지분에 관하여, 선정자 81, 선정자 82, 선정자 83, 선정자 84, 선정자 85는 별지 목록 제52, 53항 기재 각 토지 중 각 2/13 지분에 관하여, 피고는 별지 목록 제56항 기재 토지에 관하여, 각 진정명의회복을 원인으로 한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행하고, 선정자 21은 별지 목록 제54항 기재 토지 중 3/9 지분에 관하여, 선정자 22, 선정자 23, 선정자 24는 별지 목록 제54항 기재 토지 중 각 2/9 지분에 관하여, 대전지방법원 논산지원 1957. 3. 11. 접수 제889호로 마친 소유권이전등기 및 같은 지원 2004. 7. 20. 접수 제18384호로 마친 소유권이전등기의 각 말소등기절차를 이행하라.

2. Purport of participation by the independent party;

6. From among the land listed in the annexed Table 4, 41, 42, 43, 44, 68, 62, 92, 93, 94 shares in the annexed Table 4, 93, 94 shares in the land listed in the annexed Table 5, 12/364 of the land listed in the annexed Table 5, 93 and 94, 3/44 shares in the annexed Table 50, 3/46 of the land listed in the annexed Table 50, 96, 3/46 of the land listed in the annexed Table 12, 3/46 of the land listed in the annexed Table 2, 3/50 of the land listed in the annexed Table 14, 3/46 of the land listed in the annexed Table 2, 3/40 of the land listed in the annexed Table 5, 3/50 of the selected persons listed in the annexed Table 2, 3/46 of the land listed in the annexed Table 16.

3. Purport of appeal

The plaintiff : The decision of the court below concerning the Claimant 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 69, 70, 71, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 67 of the decision of the court of first instance is identical to the part concerning the Appointed 62, 72, 73, 78, 79, 79, 13, 25, 26, 28, 29, 29, 30, 30, 29, 30, 30, 31, 32, 32, 34, 35, 34, 35, 46, 14, 65, 14, 65, 65, 14, 65, 14, 666, 35, 14, 66

○ Defendant (Appointed Party) (Appointed Party): The part concerning the Appointed 92, 93, 94 among the judgment of the court of first instance as to the Appointed 41, 42, 43, 44, 68, 7, 9, 11, 14, 72, 78, 79, 13, 18, 20, 21, 221, 23, 24, and 24 of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the part concerning the Appointed 1, 41, 42, 44, 68, 7, 9, 11, 14, 14, 72, 73, 78, 13, 13, 18, 20, 21, 223, 24

The following facts may be acknowledged either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the following facts: Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 4-1, 2, 6-1 through 56, 11-1 through 10, 12-1, 13-1 through 4, 14-1 through 4, 19, 20, 39-1 through 9, 47-1, 2, 48-1, 48-2, 1, 2, and 1, the testimony of the first instance court, non-party 2, 11 of the 6-1, the testimony of the defendant (appointed party) and the whole purport of the arguments.

A. The relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party 4

1) On April 8, 1921, Nonparty 5 filed a marriage report with Nonparty 8, placed Nonparty 9 and an independent party intervenor under the sleep, and separately left Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 1 under the slick with Nonparty 6. Nonparty 5 died on March 22, 1945.

2) Around September 1950, Nonparty 4 was missing without his/her spouse or child; on July 31, 2008, Nonparty 4 was declared missing on and around September 9, 1955, the date of expiration of the period of expiration of the period, and was deemed deceased on and around July 31, 2008, pursuant to Article 12(2) of the Addenda of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199, Jan. 13, 1990); and Article 100(1)2 of the Civil Act, Nonparty 4’s sole inheritance of Nonparty 4’s property as a lineal ascendant.

3) The non-party 6 died on January 24, 200, and the non-party 1, his wife, solely inherited the non-party 6's property.

(b) Details of transfer registration of ownership;

The reason why the transfer registration of ownership has been completed after the non-party 4 was missing with respect to each land listed in the separate sheet owned by the non-party 4 is as stated in the separate sheet of registration of ownership transfer [Provided, That the "Special Assistance Act" in the separate sheet means the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Real Estate Ownership (hereinafter "Special Assistance Act") enacted by Act No. 3094 on December 31, 197, and the "Special Assistance Act on Farmland" means the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of General Farmland enacted by Act No. 1657 on September 17, 1964 (hereinafter "Special Assistance Act on Farmland").

C. Inheritance relationship between the Defendants and the designated parties

1) On October 7, 2010, Nonparty 11, who finally completed the registration of ownership transfer of the land listed in the separate sheet No. 2, died on October 7, 2010 during the lawsuit of the court of first instance, and there are 72, 73, 78, 79, 13 (1/5, respectively, of inheritance) as his heir.

2) On August 8, 2002, Nonparty 12, who finally completed the registration of ownership transfer of each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 4 and 8, died on August 8, 2002, and there are 41 (the share of inheritance 3/11), 42, 43, 44, 68 (the share of inheritance 2/11) as his heir.

3) On October 5, 2003, Nonparty 13, who finally completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the land indicated in paragraph 5 of the attached list, died on October 5, 2003, and there were 25 (3/13 of the inheritance), 26, 27, 28, 29 (per 2/13 of the inheritance), 92 (per 6/91 of the inheritance by representation), 93, 94 (per 4/91 of the inheritance by representation) as his heir.

4) On April 21, 1995, non-party 14 who finally completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land listed in paragraph 7 of the attached list, died on April 21, 1995, and there are 30, 31, and 32 (per 1/3 of the inheritance portion) as his heir.

5) On January 16, 1996, Nonparty 15, who finally completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the land listed in paragraph 9 of the attached list, died, and there were 33, 34, and 35 (per 1/3 of the inheritance portion) as his heir.

6) On January 5, 2005, Nonparty 16, who finally completed the registration of ownership transfer of the land listed in paragraph 19 of the attached list, died on January 5, 2005, there are 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 (1/6), 69 (3/42 of inheritance by representation), 70, 71 (2/42 of inheritance by representation).

7) On December 14, 1991, Nonparty 17, who finally completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the land specified in attached list No. 20, died on December 17, 191, and Nonparty 18, the wife of which died on August 18, 2012 while the lawsuit of this case was pending in the first instance court, and there are 45, Appointors 46, 47, 67, selected parties 48, 59, 60 (final share of inheritance 1/6).

8) On February 19, 1965, Nonparty 19, who completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the lands listed in [Attachment List Nos. 25 and 26, died on February 19, 1965, and there are 72 (final inheritance 7/75), 73, 78, 79 (each of the final inheritance 12/75), 13 (the final inheritance 32/75).

9) On January 16, 200, Nonparty 20, who completed the registration of ownership transfer for each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 37 and 38, died on January 16, 200, and there are 61 (the inheritance portion 3/15), 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67 (the inheritance portion 2/15), 67.

10) On April 6, 2010, Nonparty 10, who completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the lands listed in [Attachment List Nos. 52 and 53, died on April 6, 2010 while the lawsuit of this case was pending in the court of first instance, and his heir has 80 (the share of inheritance 3/13), 81, 82, 83, 84, 85 (the shares of inheritance 2/13), 85 (the shares of inheritance 2/13).

D. Nonparty 1 died on May 23, 2016 while the appellate trial of the instant case was pending, and the Plaintiff, who is one of the children, solely inherited Nonparty 1 through the agreement on the division of inherited property and took over the instant lawsuit.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

Since the owner of each land listed in the separate sheet was missing on July 1950, the cause for the ownership transfer registration that was completed in the name of the third party in Nonparty 4 is null and void. Accordingly, the ownership transfer registration that was completed in the name of the Defendants, the designated parties is also null and void. Therefore, the Plaintiff who succeeded to Nonparty 4’s property, the procedures for the cancellation registration of each ownership transfer registration completed in relation to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 54, and the Defendant (Appointed Party), the Defendant (Appointed Party), the Defendant, and the remaining designated parties are obligated to implement each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of the authentic name as to each relevant land listed in the separate sheet.

2) Defendant (Appointed Party)’s assertion

A) In order to establish school expenses by entering Korea University around October 1949, Nonparty 4 sold the land to Nonparty 21 and Nonparty 23 at Seosan-si ○○○○ (number 1 omitted), (number 2 omitted), and (number 3 omitted). Nonparty 21 and Nonparty 23 sold each of the above land to village residents. In addition, as Nonparty 4 was missing, the village residents were unable to complete the registration of ownership transfer, with Nonparty 6’s cooperation on March 11, 1957, the above land was divided into the land indicated in the separate sheet No. 1 through 8, 10 through 31, 35 through 46, 46 through 43, 46 through 49, 53, 54, 559, 50 of the separate list No. 2, 50, 195, 50, 50, 195, 55, 196, 55, 15, 55, 16.

B) The designated parties completed the registration of ownership transfer of each parcel of land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 through 20, 22 through 31, 35 through 43, 46 through 55, and occupied in good faith and without negligence for at least 10 years. The designated parties acquired each parcel of land by prescription.

3) Defendant’s assertion

A) On February 9, 1951, Nonparty 23 purchased the land listed in attached Table 56 from Nonparty 4, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 21, 1964. Nonparty 3 purchased the land listed in attached Table 56 from Nonparty 23 on February 14, 1973, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 19, 1973. Nonparty 3 completed the registration of ownership transfer on the above land in the future of Nonparty 2 on September 4, 1980, and again completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 21, 1986, and each of the above registrations of ownership transfer is valid.

B) On March 21, 1986, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land indicated in [Attachment List No. 56], and occupied in good faith and without negligence for at least ten (10) years, and acquired by prescription the said land.

C) Since the Defendant occupied the land as indicated in the [Attachment List No. 56 by its intention to own it, it acquired the said land by prescription for at least 20 years, and the ownership transfer registration with respect to the said land is valid by registration consistent with the substantive relationship.

B. Determination

1) The legality of each transfer registration

A) A registration completed according to an application for registration filed by a deceased person has no room for recognizing the presumption of registration as a registration invalidation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 83Meu597, Aug. 23, 1983). However, even if the registration is completed in accordance with a simple procedure different from the ordinary registration procedure under the involvement of a State agency in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate Ownership, etc., even if the deceased person’s registration is completed after the death date of the former registered titleholder, the presumption of registration alone cannot be said to be lost (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1843, Jan. 19, 198). However, even if a registration completed pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate Ownership, if it is proved that the certificate or confirmation document provided for in the above Act was false or forged, or that the registration was not duly registered due due to any other reason, such presumption is reversed, and if the content of the registration is not proven to have been proven to be 9749.

B) the facts of recognition

(1) In addition to each real estate listed in the attached list, Nonparty 5 owned a lot of real estate, such as ○○-ri and △△-ri's mountain and field, and Nonparty 4 succeeded to it.

(2) On June 1, 1950, Nonparty 4 was missing on September 1, 1950, and finally, the adjudication of disappearance as seen earlier became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 49 and 53, the purport of the whole pleadings

C) As to each land listed in separate sheet Nos. 1 to 8, 10 to 20, 22 to 31, 35 to 43, 46 to 49, 52 to 55

According to the above facts, on May 1, 1956, the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to each of the above lands purchased from Nonparty 4 was completed at the time when Nonparty 4 was missing on or around September 1950 by Nonparty 4, and it cannot be deemed as a registration completed by lawful registration cause, barring any special circumstance.

피고(선정당사자)는 소외 4로부터 토지를 매수하였으나 등기를 마치지 못하던 중 소외 6이 1957.경 마을에 나타나 일괄적으로 소유권이전등기를 하지 못한 사람들에게 이전등기서류를 구비해주었다고 주장한다. 갑 제23호증, 을가 제7, 8호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 소외 4의 소유이던 △△리 (지번 4 생략) 토지에 관하여 매도인 소외 4, 매수인 소외 24로 기재된 매도증서 및 위 매매에 관하여 매도인 소외 4의 대리인 소외 6이 소외 24로부터 대금을 수령하였다는 취지가 기재된 영수증이 각 존재하는 사실, 소외 4의 사촌으로서 같은 지역에 거주하였던 선정자 9는 관련 민사 사건에서 ‘소외 6이 마을에 나타나 소외 4의 대리인으로서 행위하며 소외 4의 토지들을 팔았다’는 취지로 증언한 사실은 인정된다. 그러나 갑 제20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 32, 33호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 선정자 9는 위 증언 이후 위증죄로 고소되어 피의자로 조사를 받으면서, “소외 4의 어머니 소외 6이 소외 4를 대리하여 개인적으로 매매행위를 했는지 그런 것은 모른다, 소외 6이 개인에게 팔거나 (그것을) 본 일은 없고, 소외 6이 소외 4의 도장을 가지고 다니면서 정부 상환금을 받았으니까 판 것으로 알고 그렇게 대답을 한 것이다”라는 취지로 진술하였고, 위와 같이 ‘소외 4를 대리하여 소외 6이 땅을 팔았다’고 증언한 부분에 대하여 위증죄로 처벌받은 사실( 서울남부지방법원 2012고약8247 )이 인정된다. 이러한 사정에 소외 6이 수령인으로 기재된 위 영수증은 그 진위 여부를 별론으로 하더라도 이 사건에서 문제된 토지가 아닌 전혀 다른 토지의 매매에 관련된 것인 점, 위 각 소유권이전등기가 경료된 1957. 3. 11.은 6·25 전쟁의 혼란을 겪고 난 직후이고 당시 아들이 행방불명되어 그 생사도 파악하지 못한 상태인데, 소외 6이 갑자기 마을에 나타나 아들(소외 4)로부터 땅을 샀다고 주장하는 사람들에게 수많은 필지에 관하여 일괄적으로 이전등기서류를 구비해주었다는 내용은 그 자체로도 선뜻 수긍하기 어려운 점{정작 선정자 9는 6·25 전쟁 이후에 계속하여 소외 6이 군산에 살고 있다는 것을 알았으면서도 소외 6에게 도움을 요청하지 아니한 채 특조법에 의한 등기를 마쳤다} 등을 고려할 때 위 인정사실만으로는 소외 6이 소외 4를 (사실상으로나마) 대리하여 마을 사람들에게 소외 4 명의 토지들에 관한 소유권이전등기서류를 구비해 주었음을 인정하기 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다.

Therefore, all of the arguments by the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party or his former registered titleholders on the premise that they completed each of the above registrations of transfer of ownership with the cooperation of Nonparty 6 by Nonparty 4 cannot be accepted (the defendant's assertion by the appointed party is clear that each of the above lands was purchased from Nonparty 6 by Nonparty 4's representative. However, even if Nonparty 6's representative act was asserted in the conclusion of a sales contract, the conclusion is the same as above, since it is the same as the conclusion that Nonparty 6's representative act is not recognized in itself in the conclusion of a sales

D) We examine the land listed in [Attachment 9] List.

In accordance with the Act on Special Measures on March 15, 1979, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the non-party 25's future on May 21, 1950, before the non-party 4 was missing on the land. After October 20, 1993, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the non-party 15's future on the non-party 33, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 35, and 25's lawful inheritance of the above land as mentioned above. The facts that the non-party 19, 20, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 28, 29, 42, and 43 or that the non-party 25 was aware of the disappearance of the non-party 4's relative, are insufficient to recognize the presumption of the above registration, and there is no reason to prove otherwise in this part of the plaintiff's assertion.

E) As to each land listed in separate sheet No. 50, 51, and 56

별지 목록 제50, 51항 기재 각 토지에 관하여 특조법에 따라 소외 4로부터 선정자 9 명의로, 별지 목록 제56항 기재 토지에 관하여 농지특조법에 따라 소외 4로부터 소외 26(한자성명 ◇◇☆) 주1) 명의로 소유권이전등기가 경료된 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같다. 그런데 별지 목록 제50, 51항 기재 각 토지의 등기원인은 1959. 5. 5.자 매매, 별지 목록 제56항 기재 토지의 등기원인은 1951. 2. 9.자 매매로서 모두 소외 4가 행방불명되어 부동산을 처분할 수 없었던 시기의 매매를 원인으로 하고 있는데, 이 부분에 관하여 피고(선정당사자) 및 피고는 납득할 만한 설명을 하지 못하고 있다. 특히 별지 목록 제50, 51항 기재 각 토지에 관한 피고(선정당사자)의 주장에 부합하는 증거로는 소외 4, 소외 6과 가까운 사이였던 선정자 9의 관련 사건에서의 진술이 있는데, 선정자 9가 관련 민사사건에서 소외 4의 일련의 토지 처분에 소외 6이 개입하였다는 취지로 허위 증언을 하였다가 위증죄로 처벌받았음은 앞서 본 것과 같고, 갑 제32호증의 기재에 의하면, 선정자 9는 2012. 2. 15. 위 위증 사건으로 조사를 받으면서 소외 4 명의 토지를 자기 명의로 이전등기한 경위와 관련하여, ‘특별조치법으로 이전을 하였기 때문에 누구로부터 매수를 한 것이 아닙니다’, ‘소외 4 소유로 되어 있던 ○○리 일대 142평이 6. 25 사변 이후 정부의 특별조치법으로 지주가 없고 미등기로 되어 있던 위 토지를 제 명의로 등기했었습니다’라고 진술한 사실이 인정된다. 또한 을나 제1, 3, 4호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 별지 목록 제56항 기재 토지에 관하여 1964. 12. 21. 농지특조법에 따라 경료된 소유권이전등기의 등기명의인은 △△리 (지번 5 생략)을 주소로 하는 소외 26(한자성명 ◇◇☆)인데, 위 등기의 등기필증상 등기권리자이자 등기신청인은 △△리 (지번 5 생략)을 주소로 하는 소외 23(한자성명 ◇◇◎)인 사실이 인정되는바, 이처럼 등기신청인과 등기명의인 이름이 다르게 기재된 경위를 선뜻 납득하기 어렵다(뒤에서 보는 바와 같이 위 등기신청인 소외 23은 실제로 △△리 (지번 5 생략)에 거주하던 사람이고, 등기명의인 이름으로 기재된 소외 26의 ▽자는 일반적으로 잘 사용되지 아니하는 구슬 ▽(한자 생략)의 이체자로서 위와 같이 달리 기재된 것을 단순히 등기공무원의 실수에 의한 오기라고 보기도 어렵다).

In full view of these circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the registration of transfer of ownership, which has been made under the special provisions or the farmland special provisions, was proved to the extent that the substantial contents on the grounds of transfer of rights on the letter of guarantee or written confirmation, which is the grounds for the registration, do not fit the truth or at least are not true.

If so, the presumption of ownership transfer registration is reversed, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant is invalid unless there are special circumstances.

2) Judgment on the assertion of prescription for acquisition of the registry

A) The acquisition by prescription does not relate to registration, but to the acquisition by possession without fault. The burden of proving that the person who acquired real estate has the right to dispose of the real estate shall be examined. If the transferor knew that the transferor had no right to dispose of the real estate if he had investigated, then he/she would have been negligent in the possession of the real estate (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da13052, Jun. 25, 2004). Here, the term “unauthorized negligence” means that the possessor was not negligent in believing that he/she was his/her own ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da12704, Jun. 23, 2005, etc.). However, if the possessor is the same as the one on the registry, the person who acquired the real estate shall be deemed as the owner, and unless there were any special circumstances, the person who purchased the real estate by inheritance shall be deemed as the possessor on the land of the inheritee, and the party who purchased the real estate shall not be deemed as the possessor on his/her own possession right of the land.

B) As to each land listed in separate sheet Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 27 through 31, 35, 36, 40, 42, 43, 48, 49, 52, and 53

In light of the facts acknowledged and the above legal principles, each of the above lands is insufficient to reverse the above recognition solely for the reasons asserted by the plaintiff, such as that the person who completed the registration of ownership transfer following the non-party 4 becomes a seller and completed the registration of ownership transfer thereof, and the selector or the previous owner of each land possessed possession of each of the above lands for not less than ten years by starting possession of each of the above lands without negligence. Since the first purchaser of each land had his domicile in ○○○ Ri, he was well aware of the disappearance of the non-party 4, was the same as the first acquisitor, or was a small farmer who was distributed the farmland owned by the non-party 4.

Therefore, the designated land owners or the relocating owners acquired each of the above land by prescription.

C) As to each land listed in separate sheet Nos. 4, 8, 12, 16, 22 through 26, 39, 41, 46, 47, 54, and 55

In a case where possessory right is acquired by inheritance, the inheritor cannot assert his own possession regardless of his own possession, unless he starts his own possession with a new title. In a case where the possession of the representative is the possession of the representative, the possession of the person who succeeds to the possession by inheritance from the owner of the ship does not change in its nature or form, barring special circumstances, such possession cannot be the possession independently, and in order for the possessor to hold the possession independently, the possessor shall express his intention to the owner or commence the possession with a new title (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da27273 Decided September 24, 2004).

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts and the circumstances as seen earlier, the remaining land except the land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 46, 47 among each of the above land is real estate owned by the first possessor or his heir who completed the registration of ownership transfer following the non-party 4. The first possessor is determined to have occupied the real estate owned by the non-party 4 without permission knowing that the first possessor did not have any legal requirements to support the possession of each of the above land, and there is no evidence to prove that the designated person or the predecessor's predecessor's predecessor had commenced possession of the above land without negligence

On the other hand, as to each land listed in the separate list Nos. 46 and 47, Defendant (Appointed Party) had received a registration of ownership transfer from Nonparty 7 on October 11, 2006. However, in full view of the whole purport of the argument as to each land above after Nonparty 4, Defendant (Appointed Party) not only is the first registrant of the above land but also the entire purport of the argument as to the defendant (Appointed Party) as a result of his personal examination, Defendant (Appointed Party) took over the above land as he borrowed business funds from Defendant 7, who paid money, and then took over a registration again from Nonparty 7. Defendant (Appointed Party) stated that “The above land was known to Nonparty 27 in his own future, and due to this case’s trial, it is well known that he was asked to the Selection Party 9.” Thus, Defendant (Appointed Party)’s assertion on possession of each land above as to each of the above land cannot be asserted by Nonparty 7’s new title or position equivalent to that of the appointed Party (Appointed Party). Thus, Defendant’s assertion or new title cannot be asserteded from Nonparty 7.

The defendant (Appointed Party) asserts that since the plaintiff is the heir of the non-party 6, it should not be permitted under the principle of good faith to assert that there was negligence on the first purchaser who occupied the land of this case and his successor from that time after completing the registration of ownership transfer from the non-party 6. However, the non-party 6 did not have any evidence to acknowledge that the non-party 6 transferred the land of this case on behalf of the non-party 4 to the first purchaser. Thus, the defendant (Appointed Party)'s assertion on a different premise is rejected.

Ultimately, the Defendant (Appointed Party)’s assertion on the prescriptive acquisition of each land as indicated in Section 4, 8, 12, 16, 22 through 26, 39, 41, 46, 47, 54, and 55 of the attached list cannot be accepted.

D) As to the land listed in Attached List No. 14

In light of the facts acknowledged in paragraph (1)(e) as seen earlier, the Claimant 9 was determined to have purchased the above land from Nonparty 28 on March 5, 1962 and completed the registration of ownership transfer thereof. However, in light of the facts acknowledged in paragraph (1)(e) of the above, since Nonparty 4 was well aware that Nonparty 4 did not purchase the above land, the possession of the above land by the Selection 9 constitutes an unauthorized possession of the land in bad faith.

We cannot accept this part of the defendant (appointed party)'s assertion.

E) As to each land listed in separate sheet Nos. 19, 37, and 38

(1) The land listed in Attached List No. 19

The above land was transferred from Nonparty 29, the first acquisitor, to Nonparty 16. In light of the facts and circumstances seen earlier, the possession by Nonparty 29 constitutes a malicious unauthorized possession. Nonparty 16, who first completed the registration of transfer on the land listed in Paragraph 1 of the attached Table No. 29, which is the neighboring land due to the same circumstance as Nonparty 29 on the same day, is recognized as an occupant without bad faith. Thus, the possession of the land listed in Paragraph 19 of the attached Table No. 16 of the attached Table No. 16, which is well aware that there was no legal requirement to support the possession, is determined to have occupied the land owned by Nonparty 4 without permission. On the other hand, Nonparty 16’s inheritor 36, 37, 38, Selection, 39, Selection 40, 69, 70, and Selection 71 succeeds to the volume of possession.

(2) Each land listed in separate sheet Nos. 37 and 38

Each of the above lands was transferred from Nonparty 21, the first acquisitor, to Nonparty 20. In light of the facts and circumstances seen earlier, the possession by Nonparty 21 constitutes an unauthorized possession. Nonparty 20 is a person who first registered the transfer of each of the lands listed in the separate sheet Nos. 5 and 27, which is the neighboring land, on the same day as Nonparty 21 and Nonparty 20 is recognized as an unauthorized occupant in bad faith on the commencement of possession of each of the lands listed in the separate sheet Nos. 5 and 27. Thus, it is determined that Nonparty 20 occupied the land owned by Nonparty 4 without permission knowing the fact that there is no legal requirement to support the possession. Meanwhile, Nonparty 20 succeeds to the quantity of the land owned by Nonparty 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67.

(3) Ultimately, the Defendant (Appointed Party)’s assertion on this part is not accepted.

F) As to each land listed in separate sheet Nos. 50 and 51

According to the above facts of recognition, even though it is recognized that 20 appointed parties donated each of the above lands from 9 April 23, 2005 and occupied each of the above lands without negligence, since possession after the time of filing the suit in this case before 10 years from the time of occupying each of the above lands cannot be evaluated as possession without negligence, it cannot be viewed that each of the above lands has been acquired by prescription. Accordingly, the defendant (appointed parties)'s assertion on this part is rejected.

G) As to the land listed in Attached List No. 56

The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 23 as to the above land (hereinafter referred to as “land in paragraph (56)”) is null and void, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, as to whether the Defendant started possession of the land in paragraph (56) without fault, barring special circumstance.

As to this part, the defendant purchased the land of Paragraph 56 from the non-party 23 whose domicile was located in △△△△ (number 5 omitted), and thereafter, the sale certificate and registration certificate are held by the non-party 3 and the defendant's husband and wife after the non-party 3's death, the defendant holds up until now. The non-party 3 made the non-party 2 to complete the registration of ownership transfer on the ground that the non-party 3 cultivated the above land around September 1980, and later transferred the ownership to the defendant, and the non-party 2 completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Special Assistance Act, and thereafter the non-party 2 completed the registration of ownership transfer under the original name of the defendant who is the owner.

갑 제8호증, 을나 제3, 4호증의 각 기재에 의하면, 소외 3이 피고의 남편이고, 소외 2는 피고의 오빠인 사실, 피고는 제56항 토지에 관하여 매수인을 소외 3으로 한 매도증서 및 소외 23을 등기신청인으로 하는 등기필증을 보유하고 있는 사실, 위 매도증서에 기하여 제56항 토지에 관한 소외 3 명의의 소유권이전등기가 경료되었다가 소외 2를 거쳐 피고가 그 등기명의를 취득한 사실, 소외 2는 관련 사건에 증인으로 출석하여 ‘제56항 토지가 소외 23 소유가 되었다가 나중에 소외 32라는 사람이 샀고 소외 32라는 사람에게서 소외 3이 샀다. 소외 3이 다시 판다고 해서 제가 샀고, 제가 제 여동생인 피고에게 다시 팔았다. 소외 3이 땅을 살 당시 재미교포여서 등기를 이전할 수 없어서 제 앞으로 등기 이전한 것이다’는 취지로 증언한 사실, 소외 2는 제56항 토지에 관하여 소외 3 명의로 소유권이전등기가 경료될 무렵부터 현재까지 위 토지를 점유, 사용하여 온 사실 등은 인정된다. 그러나 소외 2는 수십 년 간 △△리 마을에 거주하면서 제56항 토지를 경작하여 왔을 뿐만 아니라 제56항 토지를 담보로 제공하고 대출을 받는 등(갑 제11호증의 109) 제56항 토지를 실제로 사용, 수익하기까지 한 사람으로서 위 토지에 관한 각 소유권이전등기의 경위 및 과정 또한 잘 알고 있었을 것임에도 불구하고, 위 증언 당시 여동생의 남편인 소외 3을 알지도 못한다고 하거나 소외 3을 알기는 하나 동네 사람은 아니라고 소극적으로 진술하는 등 소외 3과의 인적 관계를 숨기려는 태도를 취하고, 소외 32라는 사람을 소외 23과 소외 3 사이의 거래당사자로 끼워 넣는 등 진술 내용 자체가 객관적 사실과 부합하지 않거나 피고의 이 사건에서의 주장과도 일치하지 아니하므로 갑 제8호증의 기재는 이를 선뜻 믿기 어렵다. 한편, 제56항 토지에 관한 1964. 12. 21.자 농지특조법에 따른 소유권이전등기의 명의인이 소외 26(☆)인 사실은 앞서 본 것과 같고, 갑 제62호증, 을나 제3, 4호증의 각 기재, 제1심법원의 대전광역시 유성구청장에 대한 사실조회결과(2013. 9. 26.자)에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하면, 피고가 보유하고 있는 매도증서상 매도인란에는 매도인 이름이 ◇◇☆으로 기재되어 있고, (인영 생략) 이와 같은 형상의 인장이 날인되어 있는 사실{위 인장 속의 마지막 글자 역시 앞서 본 바와 같이 구슬 ▽(한자 생략)의 이체자로 보인다}, 반면, 제56항 토지의 토지대장에는 1964. 12. 21. 소유권을 취득한 소유명의자가 소외 23(한자성명 ◇◇◎)으로 기재되어 있는 사실, △△리 (지번 5 생략)에 거주하던 소외 23은 1971. 2. 11. (주소 생략)으로 전출하여 위 소외 3 명의의 소유권이전등기가 경료된 1973. 2. 19.경에는 △△리 (지번 5 생략)에 주소를 두고 있지도 아니하였던 사실을 인정할 수 있다. 이러한 사정에 위 소유권이전등기 경료 당시 시행되던 인감증명법시행령(대통령령 제6370호 1972. 10. 30. 시행)에 따라 인감증명서의 유효기간은 교부일로부터 3개월인 점까지 고려하면, 소외 3에게 제56항 토지를 매도하였다는 당사자가 소외 26인지 소외 23인지 명확히 알 수 없고, 설령 등기공무원의 착오 등으로 소외 3 명의의 소유권이전등기가 경료될 수 있었다 하더라도 소외 3에게 점유 개시에 있어 과실이 인정된다. 나아가 피고는 소외 3과 함께 매도증서 및 등기필증을 소지하고 있었으므로 피고 역시 매도증서와 등기필증, 등기부등본 기재를 잘 비교하여 살펴보았더라면 소외 26 명의의 소유권이전등기가 사실은 적법하게 경료될 수 없는 등기였음을 알 수 있었을 것으로 보인다. 따라서 피고의 제56항 토지에 관한 점유는 적어도 과실 있는 점유에 해당한다고 판단되고, 달리 피고가 새로운 권원에 기하여 제56항 토지에 관한 점유를 개시하였다고 볼 자료도 없다(피고가 남편인 소외 3으로부터 제56항 토지를 증여받기로 하여 명의수탁자 소외 2로부터 소유권이전등기를 넘겨받은 것으로서 증여라는 새로운 권원에 의하여 점유를 개시한 것으로 본다 하더라도 피고는 소외 3과 함께 제56항 토지에 관한 소유권이전등기를 경료받기 이전부터 소외 26 명의의 매도증서 및 소외 23 명의의 등기필증을 소지하고 있었으므로 그 점유 개시에 있어 과실이 없었다고 보기 어렵다).

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's assertion of prescription for acquisition of register.

3) Judgment on the defendant's assertion of the prescription period for possession

Even in cases where the possessor asserts the right of possession, such as the purchase and sale or donation, but this is not recognized, the presumption of possession with the sole reason that the possessor is not recognized as the possessor of the right, cannot be deemed to be reversed or as the possessor’s possession with the nature of the possessor’s source (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da72743, Feb. 26, 2002).

On the other hand, the circumstance that the defendant did not submit a clear document to prove that he purchased the defendant from the former registration titleholder at the time of the transfer of ownership by the non-party 3, or that the negligence is recognized in the commencement of possession, it is insufficient to reverse the presumption of possession with the defendant's possession by viewing it as a bad faith illegal possession

The Plaintiff asserts that the actual owner of the land under paragraph (56) was Nonparty 2, who was Nonparty 2, and the Defendant was merely the title trustee, and the possession of the Defendant cannot be recognized as possession. Nonparty 2 actually used and profited from the land under paragraph (56). However, considering the personal relations or residence of Nonparty 2 and the Defendant, it is sufficiently possible for the Defendant to permit Nonparty 2 to use and profit from the acquisition of the land under title trust with Nonparty 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Since March 21, 1986, the Defendant occupied the above land by mediating Nonparty 2 for not less than 20 years from March 21, 1986 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land under paragraph 56, the acquisition by prescription for the land under paragraph 56 was completed.

4) Sub-determination

The transfer registration of ownership on the land listed in paragraph (9) of the attached Table 9 shall be presumed to have been duly made and valid. The registration of ownership transfer on the land listed in the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 15, 17, 18, 20, 27 through 31, 35, 36, 40, 42, 43, 48, 49, 52, and 53 of the attached Table 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 10, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 27 through 31, 35, 36, 40, 42, 43, 49, 52, and 53 was made.

Meanwhile, as to shares in the attached list 4, 8, 12, 14, 16, 22 through 26, 37, 41, 47, 50, 51, 54, and 55 shares in the attached list 4, 8, 12, 16, 16, 2, 36, 47, 2, 36, 47, 2, 36, 47, 2, 36, 47, 47, 2, 36, 47, 2, 47, 2, 47, 36, 47, 2, 47, 2, 47, 36, 47, 2, 36, 47, 2, 96, 36, 36, 47, 2, and 9, 2, 36, 36, and 9, of the annexed list 16, 2.

3. Determination as to the claims of an independent party intervenor

A. Intervenor’s assertion

1) Under the former common law prior to the enforcement of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 1960, Jan. 1, 1960), if the head of the family dies without a lineal descendant, the head of the family and the property of the deceased family shall be inherited in the order of the mother, wife, and the lineal descendant living together with the family (A). In this case, if the father and the mother are married with respect to “the mother”, the father and the mother shall have the right to inheritance and there is no right to inheritance

2) Accordingly, Nonparty 4 deemed to have died upon the expiration of the period of disappearance on September 9, 1955. According to the former common law, Nonparty 8, the mother of Nonparty 4, solely inherited Nonparty 4, and died on January 29, 1973 after Nonparty 8, the mother of Nonparty 4, solely inherited Nonparty 4. Nonparty 9 and his father, who was his father, were married, but Nonparty 9 was considered to have died upon the expiration of the period of disappearance on September 30, 1995 under the status of Nonparty 34, his mother, and Nonparty 34 inherited each real estate listed in the separate sheet, which was enforced at the time of Nonparty 8’s death, in accordance with Article 984 of the former Civil Act.

3) As to each real estate listed in the separate sheet, Nonparty 4, its owner, was missing on or around September 1950, and thus, the registration of ownership transfer made thereafter or registration in the name of the Defendants and the designated parties, which is the ownership transfer registration made thereafter, is invalid.

4) Therefore, as stated in the Intervenor’s purport of claim, as to the third/4 portion of each pertinent real estate, the Intervenor’s ownership is confirmed, and as to the Plaintiff’s litigant, the Defendant (Appointed Party) shall seek the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of real name. However, as to the land indicated in [Attachment 54] as to the Appointed 21, 22, 23, 24 among the Appointeds, the Defendant shall seek cancellation of each ownership transfer registration completed in the name and name of the deceased Nonparty 33.

B. Determination on inheritance relations

1) According to the evidence Nos. 1-1 and 2-2, the adjudication of disappearance (the Daejeon District Court Decision 2007 Haak-dan291), which states that “the period of disappearance has expired on or around September 9, 1955, it shall be declared missing,” against Nonparty 4, can be acknowledged that the adjudication of disappearance (the Daejeon District Court Decision 2007 Haak-dan291) was rendered and confirmed on July 31, 2008

2) Article 1 of the Addenda of the Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199, Jan. 13, 1990; hereinafter “the amended Civil Act”) provides that the amended Civil Act of this case shall enter into force on January 1, 1991. Article 12(2) of the Addenda provides that “Where inheritance commences due to a declaration of disappearance, if the period of disappearance expires after the enforcement of the former Act, the provisions of this Act shall apply to inheritance.”

According to the revised Civil Code of this case, where the relationship between the former enemy and the father and the mother under the former common law is no longer recognized, and where the enemy and the mother are born, only the mother has the right of inheritance and the right of inheritance cannot be recognized for the enemy.

3) Therefore, inasmuch as the instant amended Civil Act was declared missing after the enforcement of the instant amended Civil Act against Nonparty 4, pursuant to Article 12(2) of the Addenda to the instant amended Civil Act, the instant amended Civil Act is applied to the inheritance, and only Nonparty 6, the mother of Nonparty 4, is the sole heir, and the inheritance right is not granted to Nonparty 8, the mother of Nonparty 4, under the former common law.

4) As to the assertion that the Addenda of the Civil Code to the Civil Code is applicable

A) Intervenor’s assertion

① Article 12(2) of the Addenda to the amended Civil Act refers to the time when the term expires during the enforcement period of the amended Civil Act, and in this case, when the period of disappearance against Nonparty 4 expires, the Civil Act enacted by Act No. 471 (hereinafter referred to as “amended Civil Act”) on September 9, 1955, which was prior to the enforcement of the amended Civil Act. Thus, Article 12(2) of the Addenda to the amended Civil Act cannot be applied, and the amended Civil Act shall be applied to the inheritance of Nonparty 4 pursuant to Article 25(2) of the amended Civil Act.

② According to the enacted Civil Act, in the case of “a woman with a lineal ascendant who is not in the same family register” under Article 1009(2) of the enacted Civil Act, the relationship between the enemy and the father is recognized, and there is a discrimination in the share of inheritance. Accordingly, Nonparty 8, the mother of Nonparty 4, had the share of inheritance 4/5, and Nonparty 6, the mother of Nonparty 6, the mother of Nonparty 8, the heir of Nonparty 8, the heir of Nonparty 12/25 (=4/5x3/5).

B) Determination

Article 25(2) of the Addenda to the amended Civil Act and Article 12(2) of the Addenda to the amended Civil Act are interpreted as the purport of applying the Act at the time of adjudication of disappearance, not the Act at the time of the expiration of the period of disappearance in cases where inheritance commences due to adjudication of disappearance. In addition, where the period of disappearance expires prior to the enforcement of the amended Civil Act as argued by the Intervenor, only the Civil Act of the amended Civil Act shall not apply. Thus, the Intervenor’

5) Therefore, the Intervenor’s assertion against the Plaintiff, the Defendant (Appointed Party) and each of the pertinent designated parties premised on the Intervenor’s inheritance of Nonparty 8’s property by Nonparty 4 is without merit without further examining.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party shall be accepted within the extent of the above recognition, and the remaining claims against the defendant and all claims against the defendant shall be dismissed for all reasons. The claims against the independent party intervenor shall be dismissed for all reasons.

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs as to the Appointors 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 69, 70, 71, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 67, and 92, 93, 93, 94 of the Appointors and 94 of the Appointors and 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 69, 70, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 67, and 67 of the Appoints and Appoints and 94 of the Appoints and Appoints shall be dismissed, and each part of the appeal shall be revoked, 6, 37, 38, 39, 40, 69, 70, 761, 6636, 6666, 666

The Plaintiff’s 2, 3, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 4, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 45, 47, 48, 59, 60, 15, 16, 17, 17, 197, 197, 82, 83, 84, 84, 74, 74, 87, 84, 74, 74, 74, 78, 74, 74, 78, 74, 74, 74, 78, 74, 74, 74, 78, 74, 78, 74, 76, 74

The part of the claims against the designated parties 21, 22, 23, and 24 that the plaintiff changed in exchange in the trial of the party is justified, and the claims of the independent party intervenor raised in the trial of the party are dismissed for all reasons.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the same reasons above.

[Attachment Omission]

Judges’ Correction (Presiding Judge) Kim-soo

Note 1) The last letter appears to be the transferor of the old △△△ (Omission of Chinese characters). Of the transferors posted in (Omission of Internet Address), the third letter from the end is deemed to be the transferor.

Note 2) In light of the fact that 10, who purchased the land specified in paragraph 15 of the attached Table No. 15 from Nonparty 30 on December 30, 1970, was the first registration titleholder of the land as specified in paragraph 48 of the attached Table No. 48, but the registration appears to have been made in the name of Nonparty 31 with the Appointor 10, who was the Appointor 10, at the time the above registration was completed, the Appointor 10 was at the age of 15 (the testimony of the Appointor 10, who was the first instance trial witness), the possession of the land listed in paragraph 15 of the attached Table No. 15 should be deemed to have been initiated by a new title, which