[소유권이전등기말소청구사건][고집1971민,35]
Whether an unmarried South-North family owner is entitled to select an ex post facto breeder in customary circumstances at the time of the former Civil Act for his/her death.
When a male family head has died in an unmarried manner, and if there is no male in that family head, the male head of the deceased family head may designate and inherit the adopted family head of the deceased family head, and it is the custom at the time of the enforcement of the former Civil Code to inherit the family head's and property rights in the order of the mother, mother, and wife of the deceased family head of the deceased family head until the adopted family head is selected.
Articles 984, 100, and 879 of the Civil Act
Plaintiff
Defendant
Incheon District Court of Seoul District Court of First Instance (69A610)
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
The plaintiff's claim that has been changed in the trial is dismissed.
All the costs of lawsuit after appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
(Change in the trial)
The plaintiff's attorney shall revoke the original judgment.
As a principal claim, the Defendant, on May 13, 1969, performed the registration procedure for cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer due to family inheritance on July 4, 1950, for the Plaintiff on May 13, 1969, Incheon District Court Incheon District Court Incheon District Court Decision 7620 on May 13, 1969.
The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, and the defendant, as the preliminary claim, will implement the registration procedure for the transfer of co-ownership rights due to the termination of the trust on December 10, 1970 against the plaintiff on December 10, 1970.
The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.
1. Judgment as to the plaintiff's main claim
The fact that the 4th 5th 3th 5th Yae-dong, Nam-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City was registered for the transfer of ownership in the name of the deceased non-party 1 on May 13, 1969, the fact that the registration of the ownership transfer was made on July 4, 1950 by the family inheritance was not in dispute between the parties.
As the plaintiff 1, the deceased non-party 2 and the deceased non-party 1 were purchased to use the deceased non-party 1's family register on April 12, 1931, and the deceased non-party 1 was registered as the deceased non-party 4's sole name. As such, the deceased non-party 3 was deceased on July 4, 1950, and the deceased non-party 4, the deceased non-party 1's co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's deceased on December 10, 195, and the deceased non-party 4, the deceased non-party 1's co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-owner's co-ownership of the above deceased family register.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive claim
The plaintiff's attorney, after his death on July 4, 1950 and the defendant inherited the family and completed the registration of the ownership of the above forest, purchased the forest jointly in order for the plaintiff, the deceased non-party 2, and the deceased non-party 1 to use it as a family cemetery in the trial on April 12, 1931. However, since the deceased non-party 2 died on May 1, 1951 and the deceased non-party 5 succeeded to the family, the above forest is owned by the plaintiff, the defendant, and the non-party 5. Since each share is 1/3, the plaintiff's plaintiff's plaintiff's heir of the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the plaintiff's heir of the above forest, and the plaintiff's assertion that it was without merit as evidence.
3. If so, all of the plaintiff's claims and preliminary claims are groundless and dismissed. Although the purport of the claim was modified in the trial at the original trial or the trial at the original trial, it is just in the original trial that the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. Since the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, it is dismissed, and all of the plaintiff's claims changed in the trial at the original trial are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 89 and 95 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.
Judges Kim Yong-chul (Presiding Judge)