B. Whether the declaration of intent to return legal reserve can be deemed to include the declaration of intention to return legal reserve in the argument demanding cancellation on the premise that the registration completed with respect to the jointly inherited property is null and void

B. It cannot be deemed that the assertion that the registration of ownership transfer should be cancelled as a registration invalidation of cause is included in the declaration of intention to return legal reserve of inheritance.

The same defendant shall pay 1,50,000 won for each of the plaintiffs 1 and 2, and 1,000,000 won for each of the plaintiffs 3 and 4, and 2,50,000 won for each of the plaintiffs 5,6,7, and 8.

The plaintiffs' appeal against the defendant 1 and 2 is dismissed.

The plaintiffs' preliminary claims for the same defendants added in the trial are all dismissed.

Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant Gwangju-unit agricultural cooperative shall be borne by the defendant's assistant intervenor, and the remainder shall be borne by the defendant's assistant intervenor, and the part arising from the appeal against the defendant 1 and 2 shall be borne by the plaintiffs' assistant intervenor.

The above paragraph (2) can be provisionally executed.

As the primary claim, Defendant 1 against the plaintiffs on November 5, 1987, with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, the registration of transfer of ownership, which has been made on November 5, 1987 by the Suwon District Court, No. 28697, and Defendant 2 on December 26, 1987, the receipt of the same registry office on December 26, 1987, and the right to claim transfer of ownership, which has been made

Defendant Gwangjin-gu Agricultural Cooperative shall pay to each of the Plaintiffs the same money as stated in paragraph (2) of the Disposition.

The costs of lawsuit are to be assessed against the Defendants, and the declaration of provisional execution is to be declared, and Defendant 1, as a preliminary claim, will implement the procedure for the cancellation of the registration of the provisional claim for transfer of ownership, which was completed on November 5, 1987 with respect to shares of each Plaintiffs as stated in the separate sheet No. 2, 28697, which were received by the same registry office on November 5, 1987, and Defendant 2, which was completed on December 26, 1987 with respect to the same shares among the same real estate to each Plaintiffs.

Defendant Mine-type Agricultural Cooperative shall pay 750,000 won to Plaintiff 1 and 2, and 500,000 won to Plaintiff 3, and 3,500,000 won to Plaintiff 4, respectively, and 125,00 won to Plaintiff 5,6, and 6, respectively.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants, and a declaration of provisional execution is sought (the plaintiff added preliminary claims to the plaintiff at the trial).

On November 5, 1987, as stated in the purport of the claim as to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1, which was owned by Nonparty 1, the ownership transfer registration was completed by Nonparty 1 on November 5, 1987, and on December 16 of the same year, Defendant 2 had the ownership transfer registration completed in the future and Nonparty 1 died on December 12, 1987, there is no dispute between the parties.

First, although Defendant 1 purchased the above real estate from Nonparty 1, he had no choice but to purchase it, he forged the relevant documents as if he purchased the real estate from Nonparty 1 on November 3, 1987, but completed the registration of ownership transfer under his name, and the registration of ownership transfer by Defendant 2 was also null and void. Thus, the plaintiffs asserted that the above registration was sought for cancellation of the above registration as co-inheritors of the real estate. The defendants did not purchase the real estate from Nonparty 1 but did not have completed the registration of ownership transfer for the purpose of Non-Party 1’s donation and Non-Party 1’s non-Party 1’s non-Party 4’s non-party-1’s non-party-1’s non-party-party-1’s non-party-1’s non-party-party-1’s non-party-1’s non-party-party-1’s non-party-party-1’s non-party-party-1’s non-party-party-1’s non-party-party-party-party 1’s non-party-1’s testimony.

Therefore, although the ownership transfer registration made in Defendant 1 on the instant real estate was made on the ground of sale even though the Defendant did not purchase it, it is recognized that it was made on the ground of the above donation, and it is therefore valid in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is groundless on the premise that the registration of ownership transfer in the above defendant'

In addition, the plaintiffs argued that the registration of transfer of ownership in Defendant 1, in which the above real estate was completed, is null and void because the judicial clerk is the representative of both parties, including Defendant 1 and Nonparty 1, and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed accordingly, in violation of the prohibition of bilateral representation under Article 124 of the Civil Act, and that the provisional registration of transfer of ownership in Defendant 2's above right to claim for transfer of ownership is also a registration of invalidity of cause. However, although the initial application for registration is not a juristic act, but is merely a registration of obligation that has already been performed in case of a person liable for registration, the above assertion is groundless.

In other words, even if Nonparty 1 donated the above real estate to Defendant 1, the above act was conducted within one year prior to the death of Nonparty 1, and there was a shortage of legal reserve of inheritance among the heirs due to the above donation, so the above contract with Defendant 1 becomes null and void. Thus, the above registration of transfer of ownership in Defendant 1 and the transfer of ownership in Defendant 2 based on the above donation are invalid. Thus, the above registration of cancellation of legal reserve of inheritance was sought to each of the above Defendants, and even if the above transfer of ownership becomes null and void due to the above exercise of legal reserve of inheritance, it is reasonable to view that the above act of transfer of ownership and ownership transfer of each of the above real estate was conducted within one year prior to the death of Nonparty 1. The above act of transfer of ownership within one year prior to the death of Nonparty 1 and the above legal reserve of inheritance became null and void due to the lapse of one-year prescription period, and it is reasonable to view that the above act of transfer of ownership within one year prior to the death of each of the above real estate.

The plaintiffs asserted that the cause of the claim asserted while filing the lawsuit in this case on March 14, 198, within one year from the time when the deceased died, includes the declaration of intent to recover the forced portion. Thus, according to the records of this case, the plaintiffs asserted that the claim to recover the forced portion of this case was suspended by the institution of the lawsuit. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim is the cause of the claim in this case until they expressed their intent to return the forced portion of this case on February 17, 1989, and the above real estate was jointly inherited by the plaintiffs, and the defendant 1 forged the related documents as if they were purchased, and made a registration of ownership transfer in the future. This is based on the premise that the plaintiff's claim is an inherited property, such as the plaintiffs' assertion, and it cannot be deemed that the declaration of intent to recover the forced portion of this case was included in the declaration of intent to claim the forced portion of inheritance as alleged by the plaintiffs. Thus, the above re

Thus, the defendants' defenses that the right to claim the return of the legal reserve of this case was extinguished due to the prescription are reasonable, and therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion based on the premise that the right to claim the return of the legal reserve of this case is not sufficient to

2. Determination as to the plaintiffs' claim against Defendant Mine-based agricultural cooperatives

In full view of the aforementioned statements in the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 3-1, 3-2 (each regular deposit certificate) without dispute over the establishment of Gap evidence Nos. 2-2 and the testimony of non-party Nos. 3-2 (each regular deposit certificate) of the court below, the non-party No. 1 disposed of the taxi owned by himself in around 1985, and made a deposit to the investment financial institution with approximately KRW 30,000,00, and living with interest, etc. on Nov. 13 of the same year as of Mar. 11, 1987, the contract period of which was set at 12 months for the defendant Gwangju Agricultural Cooperative; the non-party No. 1 died on Dec. 12, 1987; the non-party No. 2 was the heir of the defendant No. 1, and the non-party No. 41/14 of the defendant's intervenor's remaining property as the plaintiff Nos. 14 and the non-party No.24 of the defendant.

Therefore, Defendant Mine-unit Agricultural Cooperative is obligated to pay 1,50,000 won (6,000,000x6/24) for each of the above term deposits to Plaintiffs 1 and 2, according to their respective inheritance shares, according to each of the above term deposits with respect to the Plaintiff 3 and 4, respectively, 1,000 won (6,000,000x4/24), and 5, 6, 7, and 8 respectively, 250,000 won (6,00,000x1/24) for each of the above term deposits.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims against the defendant 1 and 2 are without merit, and each of them is dismissed, and the main claims against the defendant mining unit agricultural cooperative are justified, and the part of the judgment below against the defendant mining unit agricultural cooperative is unfair with different conclusions. Thus, the plaintiffs' appeal against the defendant 1 and 2 shall be accepted and the same defendant shall be ordered to pay the same amount as the written order. The judgment of the court below's appeal against the defendant 1 and 2 is justified, and the part against the defendant 1 and 2 of the judgment below is just, and there is no ground for appeal against the plaintiff. Accordingly, the conjunctive claims against the same defendants added in the trial shall be dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the application of Article 6 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings with respect to the Declaration of Provisional Execution.

Judges Suspension-type (Presiding Judge) Kim Il-jin Kim Jin-jin