2. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 1 is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal against the plaintiff are assessed against the plaintiff.

With respect to the third point:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized that the above land was owned and cultivated by Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 as the original location, such as Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2, but the specific land owned by Non-Party 1 was 2,526 and Non-Party 3 and the above land was omitted on December 31, 1973 through Non-Party 3, Non-Party 4 and Non-Party 5. The court below found that the above land was transferred to Non-Party 2 and Non-Party 7,90 on May 27, 196, and ( Address 3 omitted) the river area of Non-Party 1 and Non-Party 2 were transferred to the plaintiff on January 13, 1975, and ( Address 4 omitted) the total share of Non-Party 2's land was transferred to the plaintiff on May 27, 196.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the records, the fact that ( Address 3 omitted) land partitioned on the land cadastre was expropriated by the legitimate expropriation procedure of Seoul Special Metropolitan City is stating that there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 (see the first and the first pleadings protocol). The court below recognized the fact that the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City accepted only the above ( Address 3 omitted) No. 8,414, and 7,618, based on evidence. However, if the court below excludes the above ( Address 3 omitted) specific land incorporated into the river area as legitimately determined by the court below, the plaintiff did not own the above ( Address 2 omitted), and if the defendant 1 owns and occupies the above ( Address 4 omitted), the land portion, and if the plaintiff's assertion that the ownership of the land in this case was based on the premise that the ownership of the land in this case was pure co-ownership by the plaintiff and the defendant 1, it does not affect the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, it is not reasonable to discuss this point.

With respect to the second ground:

In this paper, even if ( Address 2 omitted) land is owned solely by the plaintiff, so long as the land is transferred under the name of the plaintiff, defendant 1, and defendant 3, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of the right of share that the plaintiff wants to change this land to the plaintiff's sole name, there is a benefit of lawsuit. However, in order to change the part of the above ( Address 2 omitted) land owned by the plaintiff to its sole name, it is possible to terminate the title trust with the defendant 1, and immediately file a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for registration of the right of share transfer, the claim for confirmation of the right of share is without a benefit of confirmation. Therefore, the court below's conclusion that the claim for this part of the claim is legitimate because it

With respect to the fourth point:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim for the transfer registration of shares in the name of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was made with respect to the above (name 2 omitted), ( Address 3 omitted), ( Address 4 omitted), and ( Address 4 omitted), and ( Address 7,618 shares transfer with respect to the entire land except the above ( Address 2 omitted) and ( Address 4 omitted) land under the title trust of the plaintiff and defendant 1, on the ground that the transfer registration of shares in the name of the defendant in the name of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City was made through the title trust of the plaintiff who shared each of the above land and the plaintiff 1,528 shares in each of the above Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and that the share will be terminated the title trust contract and the transfer registration is made only by the explicit and implied agreement between the parties concerned, and that the transfer registration of shares in the whole land should only be made, on the ground that there is no evidence that there was no title trust relation between the parties concerned.

However, in a case where part of a parcel of land is specified and the ownership transfer registration is made only on the whole parcel of land for convenience, the registration on the part other than the specific part shall be deemed to be in the mutual title trust relation (see Supreme Court Decision 79Da741 delivered on June 26, 1979).

As recognized by the court below, Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City: (a) specified the land in the original city ( Address 3 omitted); (b) made a registration by means of a transfer of ownership by 10,430/10 of the entire land of the said ( Address 2 omitted); and (c) if the entire land is owned solely by the Plaintiff, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was completed in relation thereto, shall be deemed to be the registration of

The court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the transfer registration of shares in the name of the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which made the above ( Address 2 omitted), was caused by the title trust between the plaintiff and the defendant. Thus, there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the title trust and the lack of reason. Therefore,

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part against the plaintiff against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 1 shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal against the defendant 1 shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition

Justices Yoon So-young (Presiding Justice)