[소유권보존등기말소][미간행]
Plaintiff (Attorney Lee E-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Korea
May 11, 2006
Suwon District Court Decision 2004Da30231 Decided September 28, 2005
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The defendant shall revoke the judgment of the court of first instance on the plaintiff with respect to the registration of cancellation of each registration of preservation of ownership completed in accordance with the receipt No. 26398 on September 5, 1986 with respect to the registration of cancellation of each registration of preservation of ownership, which had been completed on September 5, 1986 with respect to the registration of cancellation of the registration of cancellation of registration of the registration of cancellation of registration of the registration of preservation of ownership of the real estate of the real estate of the real estate of 90 m20 m20 m2, 340 m2, 30 m2, 300 m2,
1. Fact of recognition (citement of judgment in the first instance);
The reasons for the judgment to be explained by a member regarding this part are as stated in Paragraph (1) in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the deletion of "308-2, 340 square meters prior to 300 square meters prior to 10,000 square meters prior to 308-2, 340 square meters prior to 30,000 square meters prior to 26, 1995" in the column for the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, since it is identical to that of Paragraph (1) in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. The party's assertion and judgment
A. The assertion
(1) The plaintiff's assertion
On January 14, 1951, the non-party 2 succeeded to the real estate of this case as a family heir, and died in the non-party 2's unmarried status on January 14, 1951, the non-party 4 and the non-party 3 et al. were not the non-party 2's family heir, but they were not the non-party 6's lineal descendants on July 26, 1990, under the former custom, they did not inherit the real estate of this case, since there was no ex post facto selection of the adopted child for family inheritance for a considerable period of time thereafter, the non-party 2's relative, who was the non-party 5's relative, and the non-party 5 and the non-party 6 et al. who was the non-party 5's collateral blood relatives, were succeeded to the real estate of this case, and the non-party 6 died on July 26, 190.
(2) The defendant's assertion
According to the former custom, in the case of this case, the plaintiff's claim on the premise of the opposing opinion is without merit, since the non-party 2's leakage or inheritance of family head and property inheritance.
B. Determination
According to the custom prior to the enforcement of the Civil Act, in cases where the male head of the family has already died before the death of the deceased head of the family and where the male head of the family has become the married head of the family, a person after the death of the deceased head of the family (including cases where the male head of the family became the married head of the family) shall be appointed for the deceased head of the family, and in cases where the male head of the family (including cases where the male head of the family became the married head of the family), but he/she has died due to inheritance of the family sovereignty and property rights, he/she shall not be included in the household, and in cases where there is no other male, the deceased person shall be determined after the birth of the deceased, and his/her family head of the family has to inherit his/her family sovereignty and property rights in the order of the mother, mother and wife, and the family head of the family (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do9349, Apr. 29, 200).
On January 14, 1951, Non-party 2, who is a health unit, family head heir, had been married in the same family register (non-party 3 (non-party 1's mother), and Non-party 4 (non-party 1's female), at the time of death of January 14, 1951, the non-party 3, who is the head of the family, succeeds to the family and succeeds to the property, and Non-party 5, who is the father of the non-party 2's father, cannot succeed to the property, and the plaintiff is not the heir of the non-party 7 (the non-party 7's old custom recognizing the inheritance of family head) is based on the premise that the non-party 3 (the non-party 1's mother), who was the head of the family, died first before the death of the head of the family and the non-party 4 (the non-party 1's mother), but died after the death of the child after the birth of the head of the family, the plaintiff did not apply the above argument.
Therefore, without any need to examine the remainder of the claim of this case premised on the premise that the plaintiff is the property inheritor of Nonparty 7.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and it is dismissed as the plaintiff's appeal against the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.
Judges Lee Jin-hun (Presiding Judge)