Gangwon Military Force*****

Representative President**

Attorney Seo-sik et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul Seocho-gu distribution Dong***********

Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff clan asserts that the real estate of this case is the property that the plaintiff clan has held in title trust to the plaintiff clan**, that the chairperson of the plaintiff clan was the chairperson of the plaintiff clan** after the plaintiff clan died on April 15, 2005, he knew that the real estate of this case had been raised to the defendant, subject to the resolution of the clan general meeting, declared that he had declared his intention of termination of title trust to the defendant, and sought implementation of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership due to the cancellation of title trust or the restoration of the true name to the defendant.

Therefore, in the case of a title trust of a real estate, the ownership externally belongs to the trustee, and if the trustee disposes of the real estate entrusted to a third party, the third party purchaser shall acquire the ownership of the trust property lawfully and terminate the title trust relationship unless there is any reason such as invalidation or revocation of the disposal, etc. This is the same in the case where the person who acquired the title of a clan property has completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation to the child with respect to the title trust property. Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, such as where the act of causing the transfer registration of ownership completed in the name of the child becomes null and void or revoked, such children shall legally acquire the ownership of the property, while the title trust relationship between the clan and the title trustee is extinguished (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da3896, Oct. 10, 197).

However, this**** because there is no special circumstance that the act of donation becomes null or void or has been revoked in collusion with the defendant in order to avoid the obligation to transfer the ownership due to the termination of the title trust of the plaintiff clan ** because the act of donation was completed in the name of the defendant in order to avoid the time of the cancellation of the title trust of the plaintiff clan * (it cannot be readily concluded that the defendant has completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant * even though the plaintiff clan has title trust with the plaintiff **, the plaintiff's witness ***, this*, this***'s each testimony of the plaintiff * was aware of the fact, and the defendant was not present in the open trial of the real estate of this case **** this until this death). According to the above facts, the defendant has lawfully acquired the ownership of the real estate of this case * even if the plaintiff's title trust relationship was sought by the defendant * even if there was no ownership trust relationship with the plaintiff * this part of the plaintiff's title trust relationship with the defendant.

On the other hand, the plaintiff clan sought the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the restoration of the real name registry against the defendant without any specific assertion other than the cancellation of the title trust against the defendant, while the plaintiff clan seeks the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the restoration of the real name registry, a claim for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the restoration of the real name registry is already registered in its own future or a person who acquired ownership under the law is entitled to recover the real name and thus, it is not possible to seek the implementation of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the restoration of the real name registry unless he or the decedent has already been registered in his or the right to own is acquired under the law (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da48970 delivered on February 23, 1993). Thus, there is no assertion that the plaintiff clan had the registration of ownership in the name of the defendant clan or acquired ownership by the law. Thus, this part of the claim is without merit further.

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

1. Mountainous map of 11,702m of forest land in the 12-m of Won-si;

2. 448 2,823 m in prime liquor.

3. The end of 449-1 Guide 1,160 m.