등기명의인표시변경등기말소 등
1. The plaintiffs' action against Defendant D is dismissed.
2. Defendant E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N,O, P, to the Plaintiffs.
1. Basic facts
A. T 20 years of age U,V, W, and 22 years of age X were assessed on July 25, 1919 on the forest land S 22,017 square meters (hereinafter “the forest of this case”), and the Y species (hereinafter “YY”) is a clan consisting of descendants of the 17 years of age grouping in the Si of T 17 years of age.
B. U, V, AA, and X4 (hereinafter “the owner of the instant forest”) were written in the owner column of the forest land in this case. U was killed in 1942, V was killed in 1927, and W was killed in 1920.
C. On June 21, 1969, when the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Forest Ownership (Act No. 2111, May 21, 1969; hereinafter “Forest Special Measures Act”) was enforced on June 21, 1969 when the forest land of this case was not registered, the forest land of this case was entered as a YJ owner on the ground of transfer of ownership in the owner column of the forest land of this case in accordance with the Act on Special Measures.
On June 3, 1971, AB, the title holder X, filed an application for registration of preservation of ownership of the forest of this case with a certified copy of the above forest register, etc. as the representative of the YJ on June 3, 1971, and later on August 12, 1971, the registration of preservation of ownership of the forest of this case (hereinafter referred to as “registration of preservation of ownership”) was completed with respect to the forest of this case under the Forestry Act.
On August 26, 1971, X, an assessment titleholder, died.
E. The progress of the relevant case 1) AC is a son of U who is the title of assessment, and AD is a son of V who is the title of assessment, and AC and AD filed a lawsuit seeking cancellation of the instant registration of preservation of ownership as the successor of the instant forest (hereinafter “related case”) by asserting that the registration of preservation of ownership was completed based on a false guarantee even if the title holder did not transfer the instant forest to the Defendant even if he did not transfer the forest of this case, and that the registration of preservation of ownership was completed on the basis of the false guarantee certificate (hereinafter “related case”).
(2) On October 22, 2013, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing the Plaintiff (AC and AD)’s claim. 2) AC and.