The decision of provisional disposition No. 71Ka1425 between the claimant and the respondent shall be revoked.

The above provisional disposition application by the applicant is dismissed.

Expenses incurred in filing an objection shall be borne by the applicant for provisional disposition in both the first and second instances.

However, the applicant originally owned the above real estate by Nonparty 1, but after the death of Nonparty 2 (the date of January 20, 1914), both were inherited by Nonparty 2, but both were deceased on November 17, 1918 without her wife, and the property was jointly inherited by Nonparty 3, 4, and 5, which was the last relative deceased on January 8, 1955. As Nonparty 3 died on January 8, 1955, the 1/3 shares of the real estate owned by the deceased was inherited by Nonparty 6. The plaintiff purchased the above real estate from Nonparty 6 and owned it through Nonparty 8 on May 3, 1968 by the applicant’s agent, and the Respondent acquired the ownership transfer registration under the name of Nonparty 2, the Respondent, who was the head of Nonparty 4, as the Respondent, did not own the above real estate under the name of the Respondent, and thus, the registration of ownership transfer was null and void by the Respondent, and the ownership transfer registration was made in order by Nonparty 2, the original name and invalid.

In addition, the non-party 6 did not have sold the land to the applicant by participating in the pre-sale of the other party.

Even if it is not so, the applicant asserts his right by subrogation of the non-party 1. The non-party 2's right to recover inheritance was claimed by the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's right to recover inheritance was not exercised by the non-party 1. The plaintiff's right to claim for recovery of inheritance had already been extinguished by the non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1'

However, in order to prevent the death of the deceased non-party 1 from becoming extinct due to the agreement between three co-inheritors 2 at the time, one of three co-inheritors 4 shall be adopted as the de facto foster children of the deceased non-party 1 (the adoption procedure in the family register shall not be fulfilled) and thereafter, he shall register the whole right to the real estate as the adopted child, and at the same time, he shall register it as the non-party 1's intention and give the whole right to the real estate to the non-party 4. Thus, the above three parties' declaration of intention on this real estate shall be interpreted at the time of enforcement of the Gu Resident Law (the Civil Code), and even if there is no case recognizing waiver of inheritance under our customary law, it shall be applied to the non-party 1's non-party 3 and the non-party 5's declaration of intention to the non-party 4 as part of the non-party 1's share to the non-party 4's co-ownership and the non-party 1's declaration of intention to the above non-party 41's ownership.

Therefore, even if there is a defect in the procedure for the appointment of ex post facto breeder, the registration of ownership preservation on the real estate in the name of the same person on June 18, 1970 is valid as a registration consistent with the substantive relations, and the registration of ownership transfer that has been transferred from the person to the respondent is valid. However, it is evident that the applicant cannot acquire ownership even if he purchased the real estate through the other person because he has ownership or ownership right on the real estate in this case to the non-party 6.

Therefore, the application for provisional disposition of the applicant's main case is unreasonable because it is unreasonable that the right of claim itself is denied, and thus the application for provisional disposition is revoked, and the application for provisional disposition is rejected, and the case of the respondent's main case that purchased the real estate from the respondent who is a legitimate owner in accordance with the record Nos. 1 and 2-1 of the evidence No. 1 and no dispute over the establishment shall be dismissed, and the respondent's main case is reasonable, and the judgment of the court of first instance that differs from the above conclusion is unfair, and is so revoked by Article 386 of the Civil Procedure Act, and is so decided as per Disposition in accordance with the principle of the losing party's burden.

Judges Noh Byung-man (Presiding Judge)