2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 through 6, Gap evidence Nos. 35 and 36, and Eul evidence Nos. 12, respectively.

A. The Plaintiff and the mother of Defendant 2 et al. owned each of the instant real estate owned by the deceased Nonparty 1, who is the mother of the Plaintiffs and Defendant 2 et al. (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). As Nonparty 1 died on May 12, 1994, the deceased Nonparty 1’s inherited property, including each of the instant real estate, both the Plaintiff and Defendant 2, who are the husband and the father of the Plaintiffs and the Defendant 2, and Nonparty 4, who are the Plaintiffs, Defendant 2, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 2, both South and North, died on January 13, 1983.

B. around September 1994, Defendant 1: (a) appointed Nonparty 3 as an attorney-at-law and filed a claim for the adjudication on the division of inherited property (hereinafter “instant adjudication”); (b) on the deceased Nonparty 1’s inherited property, including each of the instant real property, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 7, and Defendant 2 as the other party; (c) Nonparty 2 was appointed as the legal representative of seven children including the Plaintiffs; (d) at the time of Nonparty 4 was already dead on January 13, 1983; and (e) Nonparty 2 was residing in the U.S. and thus, Nonparty 2 was not delegated the power of attorney of the instant adjudication by Nonparty 4 and Plaintiff 2.

C. The instant trial case was referred to the Seoul Family Court for conciliation proceedings (No. 94p. 22183), and the date of conciliation was designated on November 1, 1994. Nonparty 2’s attorney-at-law was present at the first judge’s office in the Seoul Family Court on the date of conciliation. Nonparty 2’s attorney-at-law and Defendant 1’s attorney-at-law were inherited by Defendant 1 on his own, and 60,000,00 won in cash and 10,000 won in cash are inherited by Defendant 2 on his own, and Nonparty 4, 6, and 7 were equally divided (hereinafter “instant conciliation”). The instant protocol was prepared to the effect that Nonparty 2 and Defendant 1’s attorney-at-law succeed to each of the instant real estate and its ground, and that each of them is inherited by inheritance (hereinafter “instant protocol”).

D. After that, on December 3, 1994, Defendant 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer under his name on the ground of inheritance by consultation and division as Seoul District Court’s receipt of the vice registry office No. 53413, May 12, 1994.

E. Meanwhile, each of the instant real estate was merged with Defendant 1, who was adjacent to July 5, 1996, Jongno-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government (number 4 omitted) and (number 5 omitted) and the same (number 1 omitted) and 561.3 square meters (hereinafter “land after a consolidation”) were owned by the same Defendant 1. Of these, each of the instant real estate constitutes a part (A) connected with each of the items of the attached drawings in sequence 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 14 of the land after the annexation, and each of the said parts constitutes a part (a) connected with each of the said parts of the land (number 1 omitted) in sequence, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 12, and 37.

F. However, on June 24, 2003 regarding the land after the merger, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Defendant 2 on the ground of donation from the Seoul District Court Decision 36831, which was received by the Jung-gu Branch Office of the Seoul District Court on June 13, 2003.

G. Meanwhile, despite the fact that the plaintiffs had not granted the power of attorney to the non-party 2 as to the mediation of this case, the mediation of this case was concluded on behalf of the non-party 2 on behalf of the plaintiffs, and the mediation of this case was completed on December 3, 2003, asserting that the mediation of this case was made under the defective condition in granting the power of attorney, and that it should be revoked, the mediation of this case filed a request for quasi-deliberation on April 21, 2005, but the judgment was rendered on April 21, 2005, which dismissed the plaintiffs' quasi-adjudications. Accordingly, the plaintiffs filed a complaint with Seoul Family Court Seoul High Court 2005B34 (Seoul High Court 2005B34) and dismissed the request for adjudication of this case on July 26, 2006. Accordingly, although defendant 1 filed a reappeal to the Supreme Court 2006S89, Defendant 2 rejected the reappeal on November 23, 2006.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs are the cause of claim of this case. Although the non-party 2 attorney-at-law was not granted the power of attorney for the conciliation of this case by the plaintiffs, the conciliation of this case was established after the plaintiffs' attorney was present on the conciliation date and the conciliation of this case was completed, the conciliation of this case was completed when there was a defect in granting the power of attorney. The conciliation of this case was established against the deceased even though the non-party 4 was already dead before the plaintiffs' request for the adjudication of this case. Thus, the conciliation of this case was completed and invalid after the completion of the conciliation of this case. Thus, under the premise that the conciliation of this case was effective, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of defendant 1, which was completed on the ground of division of inherited property for each real estate of this case is invalid, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of defendant 2, which was based on this,

B. Regarding this, the Defendants filed the lawsuit in this case after three years from the date they became aware that they infringed upon the Plaintiffs’ inheritance rights by completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate of this case through the conciliation of this case. The plaintiffs' lawsuit in this case is illegal because the plaintiffs' lawsuit in this case was filed with the limitation period, and the registration of ownership transfer with Defendant 1's name is invalid unless the conciliation of this case is revoked. Further, since the conciliation of this case has the same effect as the judicial protocol, even if the representative appeared without authority and the conciliation of this case was not revoked by quasi-adjudication, it cannot be deemed that the conciliation of this case is null and void. Further, the plaintiffs expressed their intent to waive inheritance with respect to each real estate of this case before the conciliation of this case and confirmed the contents of the conciliation of this case after the conciliation of this case, and therefore, the registration of ownership transfer with respect to each real estate in the names of the defendants is valid.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the non-party 4, one of the parties to the judgment of this case, died on January 13, 1983, which was before the petition for the judgment of this case was filed, and thus, the conciliation of this case that was established thereafter shall be deemed null and void as it is against the deceased non-party 4 (see Supreme Court Decision 428Sang14, July 28, 1955). Furthermore, the adjudication on division of inherited property shall be filed by one of the successors or all of the remaining successors as the other parties, and the conciliation of this case, which was formed between one of the parties to the conciliation and the death of one of the parties to the conciliation, shall be deemed null and void for all of all of them (the same shall apply as seen earlier, before the revocation by the plaintiffs' petition for retrial based on the plaintiffs' petition).

B. On the other hand, even in a case where a title heir or a person himself/herself claims the cancellation of registration of real estate which is inherited property against some co-inheritors who have succeeded to the property on the premise that he/she is a true inheritor with respect to the inheritance, it is reasonable to interpret it as a lawsuit for the recovery of inheritance under Article 999 of the Civil Act, regardless of the cause of the claim, so long as the claim that the ownership or the right of share belongs to the property on the inherited property is based on inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da49832, Jul. 22, 2004; 90Da5740, Dec. 24, 1991; 94Da18249, Oct. 21, 1994).

As to the instant case, the registration of transfer of ownership in Defendant 1 on May 12, 1994 as to each of the instant real estate is the cause of inheritance by consultation and division. The Plaintiffs’ claim for cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant 1 on each of the instant real estate is the deceased Nonparty 1’s heir. Ultimately, the Plaintiffs’ claim for cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in each of the instant real estate in each of the instant real estate in each of the instant real estate in each of the instant real estate in each of the instant real estate in each of the instant real estate in each of the instant real estate in each of the instant case by asserting that the deceased Nonparty 1’s right to ownership in each of the instant real estate in each of the instant real estate was inherited to the Plaintiffs and Defendant 2, who received each of the instant real estate gift from the deceased Nonparty 1 and Defendant 2, who had been donated each of the instant real estate in each of the instant real estate in each of the instant real estate in each of the instant real estate in each of the instant case in each of the instant real estate in each of the instant real estate in each of the following claims for restitution of succession.

C. The plaintiffs 1, 2, 12, 1-2, 10-1, 11-2, and 14 (the plaintiff 1 and 14-2) were alleged to have been forged by the non-party 10-1, 2, and 9-14, each of the plaintiff 2's rights to waive the registration of the transfer of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2's title 9-1, 2, 3-2, and 9-2's rights to waive the registration of the transfer of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1. The plaintiff 2's rights to waive the registration of the transfer of the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 were not transferred to the non-party 1, 3-1, 9-1, 18-2, 24, 29-1, 29-1, and 3-1, respectively, and the plaintiff 1 were not entitled to the plaintiff 2's rights to waive the registration of the transfer.

D. As to this, even if the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case constitutes the lawsuit for recovery of inheritance, the registration of transfer of ownership in Defendant 1, which was completed with respect to each real estate of this case, was completed in accordance with the mediation protocol of this case, and the mediation protocol of this case was revoked by the request for re-adjudication. Since the plaintiffs knew that the cancellation decision of the mediation protocol of this case became final and conclusive, the plaintiffs should have known that the limitation period of the lawsuit for recovery of inheritance should be calculated from the date when the decision to cancel the mediation protocol of this case becomes final and conclusive. However, the plaintiffs argued that the limitation period of the lawsuit for recovery of inheritance should be calculated from the date when the decision to cancel the mediation protocol of this case becomes final and conclusive. However, as seen earlier, the plaintiffs had already known that Defendant 1 had already infringed the plaintiffs' right to inheritance by completing the registration of transfer of ownership due to

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful and thus it shall be dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and all appeals against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment Form Omission]

Judges Ahn Young-hun (Presiding Judge) and Cho Chang-hun;