2. The Defendants shall implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of termination of title trust on the date of delivery of the copy of each of the complaint in the separate sheet in the separate sheet as to each of the pertinent shares stated in the separate sheet 23 8 Ma-Ma-ri, Macheon-si, Jeoncheon-si, Yangcheon-si.

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; (b) evidence Nos. 1 through 24; and (c) evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 6 (including the number number); and (d) the testimony of Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 2 of the first instance court; and (e) the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the commission of document delivery to the National Archives of the first instance court.

A. Of the Plaintiff’s clan, the Plaintiff is a clan that is a 23 member of the ○○○○○○’s 23th class of consideration, and is a joint set of ○○○ Doum C.

B. Since the creation of a grave by Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 6 on the ground of the Do governor-ri, Yangcheon-si, Seocheon-si, Yangcheon-si, Pungcheon-si, Pungcheon-si, Pungcheon-si, Pungcheon-si, Pungcheon-si, Pungcheon-do (hereinafter referred to as “instant land” or “Yung-do,”), the grave was installed on the land of this case between Nonparty 5 and Nonparty 6, and the 24 to 35 to 35 to 15 to 24 to 35 to 24 to 35 to 15 to 15 to 14 the entrance of the grave. However, only the grave of the above Do governor-gu, Pungcheon-do is not the above Masan-do, but the grave of the above Do governor-ri, Yong-ri, Yong-ri, Yong-ri (hereinafter referred to as “Song-do, hereinafter referred to as “Song-do”).

C. On July 1962, 1962, a registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of the deceased non-party 8, who was the deceased non-party 7, who was the deceased non-party 33 descendants, at the time when the land was assessed in accordance with the order of investigation into forests and fields during the Japanese colonial era (hereinafter “land before subdivision”) in the Yecheon-si, Yacheon-si, the Minsan was located in which the deceased non-party 8, who was the deceased non-party 34 deceased non-party 7, who succeeded to Australia, completed the registration of ownership preservation in the name of the non-party 8, who was the deceased non-party 7, the deceased non-party 7

D. In around 1972, land before the division was divided into a mountain (number 4 omitted) or (number 1 omitted) for the expressway project of the Korea Highway Corporation. The land in this case was managed in its name even after the death of the non-party 8 in around 1976, and the land in this case was managed in its name even after the death of the non-party 8. On November 1, 2005, △△ Mutual Savings Bank Co., Ltd., the creditor of the non-party 8's children, filed an application for the inheritance registration by subrogation of the non-party 8, and the registration of the transfer of shares

E. The plaintiff clan created a cemetery from the old day and managed the Mamsan and the Mamsan of the Mamsan, and the clan members collected in the above Mamsan on October 11 and 13 of each year, and discussed the memorials of the clan. Since the 1960s, the non-party 8, who was the 34th member of the clan, moved to the Mamsan where the Mamsan was the Mamsan, and the non-party 8 began to manage the Mamsan directly, and after the 1976-year death of the non-party 8, the non-party 10, the non-party 5, who was living together with the non-party 8, was the Mamsan, managed the Mamsan.

F. As of 1970, in order to reduce the number of the members who participated in the agenda as soon as he/she met, the number of the members who participated in the agenda was changed on October 3, 197, which was a public holiday at the time, and the method of the agenda was also found, and the method of the agenda was gradually simplified, and the preparation for the agenda by Defendant 10 was gradually simplified, and thereafter, it was reduced from the preparation for the agenda by Defendant 10 only once. From the death of Nonparty 11, who was the wife of Defendant 10 prior to 78 and the eight years, Nonparty 10 did not prepare for the agenda, and eventually, at the end, Nonparty 10 did not prepare for the agenda, he/she did not prepare for the agenda, and as a result, he/she did not prepare only some of his/her descendants separately, and it was simply a simple preparation for the agenda from the mountain.

G. As the interest and significance of the members of the clan have become common, the starting point has been disprovingd, while the other events and activities of the clan have been de facto suspended, there occurred the movement to reconstruct and restore the clan centered on the members of the clan including Nonparty 3, 4, 12, and 13 from the mid-2000s to the 36th members of the clan, and Nonparty 3, etc., notified some of the members of the opening of the clan general meeting by telephone, and the opening of the clan general meeting on January 1, 2006 to the members of the clan and enacted the regulations and elected Nonparty 3 as the representative on January 5, 207, and filed the lawsuit of this case on January 5, 2007.

H. On January 1, 2006, there is controversy over the validity of the above clan General Meeting, and at the clan General Meeting of June 23, 2007, Nonparty 3 reconvened by Nonparty 3, who was elected as the representative of the plaintiff's clan, but at the above clan General Meeting of June 23, 2007, the above clan General Meeting was not convened by legitimate convening authority, and the non-party 3 cannot be regarded as a legitimate representative among the plaintiff's clans, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case was dismissed by the first instance court on the ground that it was unlawful to have been brought by

I. Accordingly, at the special meeting of February 7, 2009, which was convened by Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, who is the lineal ascendant of the plaintiff's species, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the lineal descendant of the plaintiff 191 members of the plaintiff 191 members of the plaintiff 171 members of the plaintiff 191 members of the family council, the non-party 3 was present at the 109 members of the family council and elected the non-party 3 as the representative of the plaintiff, and at the same time he ratified the litigation conducted as the representative of the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the lawfulness of the lawsuit

Defendant 9 through Defendant 22 defense that the Plaintiff’s race was not lost. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s race was naturally formed from the old to the old time to the Doudong, and thus, the Plaintiff’s race was naturally formed, and its activity was de facto suspended. As such, it can be known that the Plaintiff’s principal safety defense was reconstructed after 2006 by the affirmative efforts of several members, including Nonparty 2 and 3.

3. The defendants' duty to transfer ownership registration

A. As to Defendant 1 and Defendant 8

Judgment on deemed confession under Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. As to the defendant 9 to 22

원고는 이 사건 소장부본 송달일자 명의신탁 해지를 원인으로 위 피고들에게 이 사건 토지에 대한 각 그 명의의 소유지분에 관하여 소유권이전등기절차의 이행을 구하므로 살피건대, 앞서 본 것처럼 이 사건 토지는 원래 원고종중이 관리하던 선산으로서 원고가 일제시대에 33대 종손인 소외 7에게 그 명의를 신탁하여 사정받은 분할전 토지의 일부이고, 이를 그의 맏아들인 소외 8이 상속하여 소유권보존등기를 마친 후 각 피고들 앞으로 상속등기가 경료된 것이므로, 피고들은 명의신탁을 해지한 원고에게 이 사건 토지에 대한 소유권이전등기절차를 이행할 의무가 있다.

In addition, the above defendants' assertion. The defendant 10 and the non-party 14, who are the non-party 10 and their inheritors, have acquired the whole compensation for expropriation that the land was expropriated at the Korea Highway Corporation around 1972, which is a part of the land before the division, from which the non-party 8 and the non-party 14, who were the non-party 10 and their children, were in charge of the management of the mountain, and paid the compensation for expropriation. The non-party 8 and the non-party 10, who were their children, did not raise any objection to the non-party 8 and the non-party 10's activities. It is insufficient to view the non-party 2's testimony to the effect that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 had already been established at the time of the non-party 2's testimony or the non-party 2's testimony to the effect that the non-party 1 and the non-party 3's testimony to the non-party 2's testimony to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's testimony.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance, which has concluded otherwise, is unfair, and it is so revoked and it is so decided as per Disposition by ordering the defendants to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of this case.

[Attachment Form List and Date of Service of Copy of Written Request]

Judges Cho Young-chul (Presiding Judge) Kim U.S.-U.S. type