2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit shall:

A. The part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 is as follows:

B. The part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea is:

Each share shall be borne.

Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership, which was completed under No. 1530 on March 16, 1965, with respect to the pertinent shares in the attached list of inheritance shares, among the real estate in the attached list 1 and 2, to the Plaintiff.

2. Claim against Defendant 18 (Korea)

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The real estate of this case

(1) On July 10, 1922, Nonparty 2 ( Address: Gangcheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-gun) was subject to the assessment of 5 and 6900 forest land (number 1 omitted). The real estate listed in the attached real estate list was divided into the above forest land on April 6, 1971, and the real estate listed in the attached real estate list was divided into one real estate listed in the attached real estate list on January 16, 198.

On the other hand, the deceased non-party 1 (the non-party to the judgment of the Supreme Court) made registration of preservation of ownership on March 16, 1965 as the receipt No. 1530 on March 16, 1965 on the attached real estate list 1 and 2.

(2) On July 15, 1922, Nonparty 3 and five others (including Nonparty 2, 3, and address: Gyeonggi-gun, Gun, Dongcheon-gun), were assessed on July 15, 192, 1300 forest land and 1,300 forest land (number 2 omitted). The forest land was pointed out as 3 real estate listed in the annexed real estate list.

On the other hand, the defendant Republic of Korea completed the registration of preservation of ownership as the receipt No. 11005 on October 7, 1996 with respect to the 3 real estate listed in the attached list of real estate.

B. Succession to the Plaintiff’s prior-party Nonparty 2

On April 28, 193, the deceased non-party 2 (propin type, permanent domicile: Doang-ri (number 3 omitted) succeeded to the deceased non-party 4, who is the deceased on April 28, 193.

On August 6, 1990, the deceased non-party 4 died and jointly succeeded by the deceased non-party 5 week 1), the deceased non-party 7, the non-party 8, the non-party 9, the non-party 10, the deceased non-party 12, the deceased non-party 13), the plaintiff, the non-party 18, the non-party 19, and the non-party 20.

The above co-inheritors agreed on the division of inherited property to be inherited solely by the Plaintiff.

C. Inheritance to the deceased non-party 1

On December 25, 1969, the deceased non-party 1 succeeded as shown in the attached inheritance share sheet by Defendant 1 or 17.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts that there is no dispute between the parties; entries in Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 6-7; the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the claims against Defendant 1 to 17

A. According to the above facts of recognition, Nonparty 2, an assessment of real estate in the attached Form 1 and 2, is the same person as the Plaintiff’s prior Nonparty 2, the deceased Nonparty 2, and the deceased Nonparty 1, who is not the circumstances of real estate in the attached Form 1 and 2, should be cancelled as the registration of preservation of ownership was made without any special reason, except in extenuating circumstances.

B. Determination as to the above Defendants’ assertion of prescriptive acquisition

(1) The above Defendants asserted that the deceased non-party 1 purchased the instant real estate from the owner and occupied it in peace and openly with intent to own it for twenty (20) years from March 16, 1965, and acquired prescription.

(2) With respect to the possession of a building site, possession of a thing refers to the objective relationship that appears to be in a person’s factual control under the social concept, and is in de facto control, it does not necessarily mean that a thing is physically and practically controlled, but should be determined in conformity with social norms by taking into account the time, space, principal right relationship with a thing, possibility of exclusion from others’ control, etc. In general, the person who is registered as the owner of a building site shall be deemed to have obtained possession by delivery of the building site at the time of registration, and therefore, it cannot be determined that the fact of possession cannot be recognized without any special circumstances (Supreme Court Decision 98Da2010 delivered on January 16, 201).

(3) According to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act and Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, it is presumed that the possessor has occupied the real estate owned by another person with the intention of possession in peace and public performance. However, on the other hand, in a case where it is proved that the possessor occupied the real estate owned by another person without the consent of the third person with the knowledge of the fact that the possessor did not meet such legal requirements without the consent of possession at the time of commencement of possession, the presumption of possession with the intention of possession can be reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da49627, Apr. 15,

Article 130 of the former Registration of Real Estate Act (amended by Act No. 536, Jan. 1, 1960) which was in force at the time of the registration of preservation of ownership of unregistered land is permitted to apply for registration of preservation of ownership by a land cadastre or by a person who proves that the registration was made by himself/herself or by his/her predecessor as the owner of land cadastre or by a judgment. In particular, in the case of an individual, it is difficult to deem that he/she has a duty to keep documents on the acquisition of real estate, unlike the State or a local government. In light of the above, it cannot be deemed that the presumption of possession of real estate has been reversed, even if the circumstances leading up to the registration of preservation of ownership was not revealed or the documents on the acquisition of real estate were not submitted, it cannot be deemed that the presumption of possession without permission has been reversed.

(4) If so, the deceased non-party 1's heir acquired the ownership of the attached Table 1, 2, and the real estate by the completion of the prescription period from March 16, 1965. Thus, the defense of the completion of the prescription period for possession by the above defendants is justified.

C. Sub-decision

Ultimately, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership of this case against the above defendants is without merit.

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s main defense

(1) Defendant Republic of Korea, upon recognition of the Plaintiff’s request for cancellation, has re-influenced the remainder except for the Plaintiff’s share, and thus, cannot apply for registration of preservation of ownership of the Plaintiff’s share as the Defendant newly acquired. Thus, Defendant Republic of Korea has a safety defense

(2) One of the co-owners is the act of preserving jointly-owned property, and there is a benefit in the claim of this case since he can file a claim for cancellation registration with the title holder. Thus, the prior defense of the defendant's Republic of Korea is without merit.

B. Judgment on the merits

Of the circumstances of the three real estate listed in the attached list of real estate, Nonparty 2, one of the circumstances of the three real estate listed in the attached list, is the same as Nonparty 2, one of the plaintiff's fleets, and according to the above facts of recognition, unless there are other circumstances of the three real estate listed in the attached list of real estate, registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant Republic of Korea shall be cancelled unless there

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, Defendant Republic of Korea has the obligation to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of registration of cancellation of registration of ownership preservation, which was completed on October 7, 1996 as the receipt No. 11005, with respect to 3 real estate listed in the attached real estate list, to the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant in Korea is justified, and the claim against the defendant 1 through 17 is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judgment Notarial decoration

(1) On August 6, 2009, the deceased non-party 5 died and jointly inherited by the non-party 7, non-party 8, non-party 9, non-party 10 (the deceased non-party 1 had already died on August 13, 1990), the non-party 12, the non-party 12, the non-party 14, non-party 15, non-party 16, non-party 17, the non-party 18, non-party 19, and non-party 20.

2) On August 13, 1990, the deceased Nonparty 11 died and Nonparty 7, Nonparty 8, Nonparty 9, and Nonparty 10 jointly inherited.

3) On March 15, 2002, the deceased non-party 13 died and the wife non-party 14, non-party 15, non-party 16, and non-party 17 jointly inherited.