2. A copy of the claim for acquisition by prescription based on the registration of invalidation;

2. The Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership is registered based on the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the deceased, who is the part of the Defendant’s deceased, and the Defendant, as a sole heir of the above real estate, cannot be deemed to have completed the acquisition by prescription based on the registration in the name of the Plaintiff, which was made from the above null and void name.

All of the appeal costs and the litigation costs claimed by the plaintiff in the trial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff (the defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff, hereinafter the defendant)'s counterclaim is dismissed.

2. The defendant will implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership in the defendant's name, No. 188 of Jan. 9, 1965 (No. 9, Jan. 9, 1964) with respect to forest land of this case to the plaintiff.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.

(1) The registration of ownership transfer was completed on December 17, 1964 under the defendant's non-party 1's denied network non-party 1's name with respect to the Dong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (detailed number omitted) . The fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale on the 8th day of the same month and the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 9, 1965 under the defendant's name as the receipt No. 188 of January 19, 1965 with respect to the same forest and field as above. There is no dispute between the parties.

(2) A. On December 17, 1964, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant non-party 1 was completed in the name of the defendant's non-party 1, but again on January 9, 1965, the registration of registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant is null and void. Even if the name holder of the registration is different, the defendant is the non-party 1's sole heir at the time of the death of the non-party 1, and the registration of preservation of the name of the defendant that was completed after the registration is completed in the name of the defendant. Thus, the registration of preservation of the name of the non-party 1 of the deceased becomes the same considering the nature of the registration of preservation of the name of the defendant.

However, in the case where registration of preservation of ownership has been completed in duplicate under the name of the same person on the same real estate, registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the same real estate shall be null and void without being consistent with the substantive relationship as a double registration. However, in the case where registration is completed in the same real estate because it is still in existence, registration overlapping with another person on the same real estate shall be completed, and in the litigation proceedings, the court shall decide whether to enter the substantive relation and what kind of registration is true based on the true ownership (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 77Da2427 delivered on December 26, 1978, Supreme Court Decision 77Da2427 delivered on December 27, 197). As seen above, since registration of preservation of ownership in the same real estate has been completed in duplicate under the name of the same person on the same real estate, the plaintiff's registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the deceased, which was completed after the need to determine whether it conforms with the substantive relation, has no reason to claim that registration of registration in the name of non-party 1 is null and void.

B. On December 1964, the plaintiff was introduced by the non-party 2 on behalf of the non-party 3 and the non-party 4 on the non-party 5, the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 on behalf of the plaintiff 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 were transferred to the non-party 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 were transferred to the non-party 5, the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 were registered as the non-party 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 5 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 4 and the non-party 5 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 were the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 were the non-party 9 and the non-party 5 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 4 were the non-party 1 and the non-party 6's allegation that the plaintiff's forest is valid.

C. Although the plaintiff did not have the above right of representation against the non-party 5 who was present as the defendant's representative on December 8, 1964, the defendant's deceased non-party 1 concluded a contract with the trust that the non-party 1 had the right to enter into the above contract for the registration of ownership transfer of the non-party 1's 275 forest land 1 and 4 forest land 275 forest land 5 forest land sold by the non-party 5 to the non-party 7, so the above contract is valid in accordance with the legal principles of expression agency, and accordingly, the above registration of the plaintiff's name completed in accordance with the legal principles of expression agency is valid, and the plaintiff's above registration of the plaintiff's name is valid in accordance with the substantive relation. However, even if it is based on all evidence submitted by the plaintiff, there is no evidence that the non-party 5 actively acted as the defendant's representative at the time of this contract, and there is no negligence that the plaintiff or his representative did not directly confirm whether the defendant's residence or his representative.

D. The reason why the plaintiff ratified the sale of the forest of this case by the non-party 5 even though it is an invalid act as an unauthorized agent or an invalid act,

① After the Plaintiff purchased this forest land on December 8, 1964 and completed the registration thereof on March 17, 1965, the Defendant planted and managed seedlings from around March 17, 1965. According to the Defendant’s high-parents, dead-parents, and parents’ joint burial and management of seedlings every year, there was no doubt for about 20 years even though the Plaintiff’s planting and planting were well known. However, according to the above evidence Nos. 24-6 through 11, A’s evidence Nos. 25-1, 2, 39, A’s evidence Nos. 1, 50-2, A’s evidence Nos. 50-1 through 5, A’s evidence Nos. 54-1, 55, 1, and 2, the Defendant’s assertion that the planting and planting were actually managed in the above area is without merit.

② 피고는 1980. 11.경 그간 본건 임야 소재지인 내남동 내남부락 산림계장을 맡아오던 소외 6(1905. 7. 15.생)을 통하여 이건 임야 매매계약 당시 입회하였고 광주시 제2수원지 관리소장이었던 소외 3에게 이건 임야 중 피고의 선조분묘가 있는 부분으로 약 1정보를 원고가 매도하여 주도록 해 달라고 간청하여 이건 매매계약 당시 원고를 대리한 전라남도 임목양묘장장인 소외 2에게 인도하여 동인이 원고의 주소를 알려 주었고, 피고는 1980. 12. 내지는 1981. 1.경에 그의 아들인 소외 8과 함께 소외 2를 그의 집으로 찾아와 이 국장(원고의 남편인 소외 9를 가리킴)의 소재를 물으면서 “집안에 못쓸놈(이건 매매계약 당시 참석했던 소외 5를 가리킴)이 있어 가지고 본건 임야를 팔아 먹었다”고 하면서 이건 임야 중 조상분묘 있는데로 약 1정보를 떼어달라고 사정하기에 소외 2는 “이 국장은 웬만한 분이니 양해가 되면 들어 줄 것도 같지만 1정보는 너무 많지 않으냐?”고 서로 이야기 한 바 있으며, 피고는 1981. 7.경 하곡수매시에 소외 6을 통하여 소외 3에게 이건 임야 중 조상분묘가 있는데로 약 1정보를 매수하겠으니, 원고의 주소를 가르켜 달라고 요청한 사실이 있으므로 위 일련의 사실에 비추어 보건대, 피고는 소외 5의 이건 임야에 대한 매매행위를 추인한 것이라고 주장하나, 위에서 믿지 않는 일부 서증 및 증언 부분 외는 이를 인정할 증거가 없으므로 원고의 위 주장 역시 이유없다.

D. On December 8, 1964, the Plaintiff believed that the Defendant’s deceased Nonparty 1’s right to dispose of the instant forest by means of the Defendant’s seal impression and the certificate of seal imprint was authorized to dispose of the instant forest by Nonparty 5, who was the agent, and purchased the price in KRW 258,000, the Gwangju District Court received KRW 19534 on December 17, 196, and occupied the instant forest in good faith and without negligence, as owner’s intention after completing the registration of transfer of the Plaintiff’s name, and as such, the prescriptive acquisition of the ownership of the instant forest was completed as of December 17, 1974 and acquired its ownership. Accordingly, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff is valid in accordance with the substantive relation. Therefore, the registration of invalidation inconsistent with the substantive relation is sought for cancellation.

As seen above, the Plaintiff’s registration of transfer of ownership was based on the Defendant’s registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 1, the deceased Nonparty 1, and the Defendant is a lawful sole heir with respect to this case’s forest land, so long as the registration of preservation of ownership in his name was lawful, it cannot be deemed that the registration of the Plaintiff’s name was completed by the registration of the Plaintiff’s name, which was made from the above invalid deceased’s name. Therefore, the Plaintiff

3. We examine the defendant's counterclaim.

The forest originally owned by the defendant's deceased non-party 1, and there is no dispute between the parties that the defendant inherited only by the defendant's death and completed the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant as of January 9, 1965. Thus, the above registration in the name of the defendant is recognized as valid registration, and the above transfer of ownership in the name of the plaintiff is null and void as recognized in the above paragraph 2. As such, the plaintiff is obligated to cancel the above registration in its name.

4. Accordingly, the plaintiff's main claim, part of the main claim and the conjunctive claim added in the trial, are without merit, and they are dismissed, and the defendant's counterclaim claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed, and all the plaintiff's main claim and conjunctive claim added in the trial of first instance are dismissed, and the costs of the appeal and the costs of the lawsuit additionally claimed by the plaintiff in the trial of first instance are assessed against the plaintiff.

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge) and Kim Jong-chul