Gangwon*** military******** Ri***

Representative Park*

Attorney Han-soo et al.*

Gangwon* military** Myeon** Myeon** Ri***

* (************************))

*** Dong******-**

************************** (*)

**** Dong************

************************** (*)

**** Dong********* (**)

Service place** in that time*********

*************************** (*)

*** Dong********* (**)

Service place** in that time*******-***

6. Stambling** (*************)

** Si** Dong*****

**************************** (*)

*** Dong**********

************************** (*)

***********************************

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others

************************* (*)

***** such************************

************************** (*)

** Si** that*** apartment** that** that**,**,* through*

************************** (*)

Seoul************************** such**2

************************** (*)

***** such****************** such****

**************************** (*)

** Si** Eup********-*****

************************* (*)

***** such***************** such****

2. The procedures for the registration of each transfer of ownership on the ground of the transfer agreement on August 1, 2006 with respect to shares 1/6 out of forest**, preceding*, preceding*, preceding*, preceding*, preceding*, preceding* Gangwon*** in the military** in the Myeon**** in the 311m of forest land* in the 1/6th of the 31m of forest land, shall be implemented.

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

(a) Gangwon-do*** Myeon** Myeon* Ri** Forest** Council of Japan* Council of Japan's land research under the Land Survey Decree of Japan.

The land under circumstances* before the Si network* The land in the name of the Si, whose area has been converted and registered later, is described in Paragraph 1 of this Article.

land(hereinafter referred to as the "land of this case") was located, and as to the land of this case, September 1, 1989.

The Act on Special Measures for the Restoration Registration, Preservation Registration, etc. of Land not restored by Owners in the Riverside Area.

(No. 3627, invalidation, hereinafter referred to as the "Special Measures Act") under the name of the deceased*

On December 28, 1989, after the completion of the registration of the owner's restoration, the registration of ownership preservation (hereinafter referred to as "the registration of ownership preservation") will be made in the future.

The registration for preservation was completed.

B. Precece** On May 10, 1928, after death on May 10, 1928, before the deceased* A has succeeded to Australia* before the deceased*56.

1. 5. Dec. 1, 198, deceased * before the deceased * The deceased * before the deceased * October 4, 1997.

The former part*, the former part*, the former part*, the former part*, the former part*, the former part*, the former part**, the former part*, the former part* (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant*, etc.") as his child*.

Defendant * et al., on August 1, 2006, jointly succeeded to the same proportion, and they are as follows to the Plaintiff.

The instant land inherited was agreed to be transferred to the Plaintiff. (c) On the other hand, the deceased on August 11, 2005, and the deceased on August 11, 2005, the Defendant * and the Defendant as his spouse * and children.

Park**, Park*, Park*, Park*, Park*, Park*, Park*, Park*, Park*, Park* (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant*, etc.") these attacheds.

A deceased was jointly inherited in proportion to the inheritance shares entered in the inheritance share table. [The grounds for recognition: the facts of no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, and Eul evidence 1]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant land is owned before the network** before the Defendant who succeeded to the instant land in succession **, etc., and the instant preservation registration was made based on false letter of guarantee and confirmation, and the Plaintiff was transferred the instant land from before the Defendant *, etc. As such, ① before the Defendant *, etc. was transferred the instant land due to the transfer agreement, ② the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the instant preservation registration, which is null and void against the Defendant *, etc. * before the Defendant *, etc. (the Plaintiff may file a claim for cancellation on behalf of the owner **, etc. to preserve the right to claim the transfer registration of the right to claim the transfer registration of the right to the instant land).

B. Defendant this** et al. argument

The Plaintiff’s right to claim for ownership transfer registration against Defendant Jeon** et al. does not exist, and the period for the preservation, etc. of this case is presumed to be lawful and effective registration. Thus, the land of this case cannot be deemed to be owned by Defendant Jeon* et al., and even if the land of this case was owned by Defendant Lee et al. before and after the Defendant purchased the land of this case, it is valid for the registration of this case to conform to the substantive relation, since the acquisition by prescription and the acquisition by prescription by using it as home continuously occupied by the deceased and his heir*, etc.

3. Determination

A. Claim against Defendant Jeon* et al.

On August 1, 2006, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff agreed to receive the respective inheritance shares of the above Defendants regarding the instant land from Defendant*, etc., before the Defendant, etc., but did not dispute this. Thus, the Defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for the transfer registration of ownership based on the transfer agreement on August 1, 2006 with respect to each of the shares of 1/6 out of the instant land **, etc.

(1) Determination as to the non-existence of a preserved claim

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff had the right to claim for ownership transfer registration of the instant land before Defendant **, etc., and as such, this part of the defense by Defendant *, etc. is without merit. (2) Determination as to the presumption of ownership registration of the instant land

Even where it is found that the person in charge of the assessment of the land, the registration of which has been completed under the Act on Special Measures, has been presumed to have been completed according to the lawful procedures prescribed in the same Act and consistent with the substantive legal relationship, and thus seeking the reversal of the presumption was prepared by the party concerned as a false letter of guarantee or confirmation under the same Act, which served as the basis of the relevant registration, or for other reasons. However, the degree of false proof of the certificate of guarantee to reverse the presumption of registration is sufficient to prove that the content of the real statement is not true, and it is not sufficient to prove that the degree of false proof of the certificate of guarantee to reverse the presumption of registration is sufficient to prove that the content of the real statement is not true.

As to the instant case, the registration of preservation of public health room and this case was completed under the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Public Health, etc.* even if the land of this case was assessed, it is presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship. However, the following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the following facts, and the statement in Gap evidence 4-3, 5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Gap evidence 6-2, Gap evidence 7, 8, Eul evidence 2-1, 3-1, witness Kim *, Kim *, Kim *, Kim, and the statement in Eul evidence 4, against this point of view, is difficult to believe, and there is no counter-proof.

① The Plaintiff, the designated guarantor of the letter of guarantee that served as the basis for the preservation registration of the instant case, Kim*

was known to be the owner of such property, but Writtenlbling* If requested by the plaintiff, the registration shall be transferred at any time.

(1) The letter of guarantee that the owner may register the owner's restoration under his/her name, once

The letter of guarantee was drawn up upon the request for the issuance of the letter of guarantee. ② 'leap as a village head at the time of the preservation registration of this case* on March 30, 1983* Embrypt* Emba* Emba*

Kim** the land in this case, written a written confirmation that the sale of the land was confirmed.

The number of lot of the land (*** Ri**) so purchased is confused with that of another land (****) and sign a written confirmation.

It was signed and sealed by the deceased and did not know whether or not the deceased purchased the land in this case. <3> The plaintiff prevents another person from taking a sphere or fire fighting sphere and its neighboring land **

** Management of forest land 2,98 square meters, same Ri** Forest land 6,770 square meters, and 303 square meters of forest land 1,633 square meters in the same Ri

The above ** ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the plaintiff's future with respect to forest land 210,303

The preservation registration has been completed.

In full view of the above facts and the above guarantee letter, which is the owner's application for recovery, * one of the guarantors, it is reasonable to see that the guarantee letter or confirmation document, which is the basis of the preservation registration of this case, has proved to the extent that its substantive contents are not true, and thus, the presumption of the preservation registration of this case has been destroyed. Therefore, barring any special circumstances, the presumption of the preservation registration of this case * Hembre** Until before the defendant * et al., the heir of this case is obligated to cancel the preservation registration of this case in accordance with the inheritance shares in attached Form ** et al.

In this regard, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff occupied the land in this case for 10 years or for 20 years in light of the above facts, and it is insufficient to recognize only the images of the evidence Nos. 3-1 and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the defense cannot be accepted.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, since the plaintiff has a duty to register cancellation of the preservation registration of this case according to the inheritance shares listed in the attached inheritance shares list to the defendant ***, etc., and the plaintiff has a duty to register cancellation of each registration of transfer on August 1, 2006 with respect to shares of 1/6 of the land of this case.

1. Defendant this**: 3/17

2. Defendant Gamb*, Park*, Park*, Park*, Park*, Park*, Park*, Park*, Park*, Park* respectively: 2/17 end.