2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. 3/10 of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of the Defendant on June 26, 1974 with respect to the Suwon District Court’s Seosung District Court’s 22025m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) with respect to the 5,109m2 of forest land (number omitted) in Seosung-gun, Sung-gun, Gyeonggi-do. As to each of the instant land, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of the Defendant on the ground of sale as of December 22, 1997 with respect to each of the instant land on the ground of sale as of December 22, 1997, Nonparty 1 and 2 (hereinafter “ Nonparty 1, etc.”) as of January 4915, 198, respectively.

B. On April 2, 2009, the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap943755 case where the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the cancellation of each registration of ownership transfer against the Defendant, etc., the Seoul Central District Court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on April 2, 2009 against the ground that “ Nonparty 3, the preferred owner of the Plaintiff, is presumed to have received the assessment of the land of this case, and the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case in the name of the Defendant is null and void, and the Defendant is liable to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation, since the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case was finally inherited by Nonparty 3, the Defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of cancellation.” On January 22, 2008, the prescription period for acquisition of the ownership transfer on the land of this case was completed, and the registration of ownership transfer by Nonparty 1, etc. is valid in accordance with the substantive relation. This judgment became final and conclusive as to the Plaintiff and Nonparty 1, Apr. 28, 2009.

[Evidence] Each description of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 1 and 2

2. Determination

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

The Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership registration in the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant land, and as the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 1, etc., which was based on the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant, is recognized as effective due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription in a lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against Nonparty 1, etc., the Defendant’s obligation to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation was eventually impossible, so the Defendant is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff

(b) Scope of damages;

The amount of damages suffered by the right holder due to the impossibility or impossibility of the performance of the duty to register the transfer of real estate ownership or the cancellation of the registration for preservation of real estate ownership is equivalent to the market price of the object at the time of the impossibility or execution thereof. Thus, the amount of damages incurred by the failure of the defendant to execute the duty to register the cancellation of registration for preservation of ownership is equivalent to the market price of the land at the time of April 30, 2009, which became final and conclusive by the judgment against the non-party 1, etc. of the plaintiff, and according to the result of the appraisal entrusted to the non-party 4, the market price at the time of April 30, 2009 is recognized

However, the plaintiff or the plaintiff's decedent neglected to take measures such as ascertaining ownership ownership and inheritance of the land of this case for a long time, thereby failing to timely cope with the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of non-party 1, etc., and such negligence on the plaintiff's side shall also be deemed to have caused the damage of this case. Therefore, in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant, it shall be considered in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant, but it shall be reasonable to view that such ratio exceeds 30

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to claim against the plaintiff about the existence and scope of the obligation to perform as of May 1, 2009, which is the day following the day when the execution is impossible (i.e., 980,928,000 won x 0.7) and to pay to the plaintiff 686,649,600 won with 5% per annum under the Civil Act until August 18, 2009, and damages for delay calculated by 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judge Choi Jin (Presiding Judge)

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Da53638 Decided June 11, 2009; Supreme Court Decision 2000Da18196 Decided January 30, 2001