2. With respect to the claim for ownership transfer registration filed by Suwon District Court on July 13, 1989, the part of the claim of the recognition statement prepared on July 13, 1989, “The part of the selected parties Nonparty 1, 2 (number 3 omitted), Nonparty 4, 3, Defendant 19 (number 4 omitted), Defendant 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of the title trust registration filed by Suwon District Court on July 14, 1989, with respect to each ownership share of 15,306 square meters of the forest (number 1 omitted), “The part of the claim for title trust registration filed on May 22, 1989 shall be revoked.”

3. All of the claims filed by the Plaintiff (Quasi-Appellant) against the Defendant (Quasi-Appellant) are dismissed.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by all the plaintiffs of the first and second instances.

A. The plaintiff clan (hereinafter "name omitted") is a clan that is composed of the non-party 10, who is the non-party 9-26 years old, the non-party 9-26 years old, the non-party 10, and the plaintiff is the non-party 11, who is the non-party 10, the south of the above non-party 10, the non-party 11, and (name omitted) the non-party 1 is the higher clan of the plaintiff clan.

B. On December 11, 1970, with respect to the forest land of this case (hereinafter “the forest land of this case”) 15,306 square meters in Nam-gu, Chungcheongnam-si, Nam-si, Chungcheongnam-si, the registration of ownership was completed in six names, including Nonparty 5, 3, 4, and Defendant 19, on the ground that Defendant 19 and Dong name (Dong name) were residing in the Gerogian (Sero 3 omitted), and that the registration of ownership was completed in order to distinguish from Defendant 19 (hereinafter “Nonindicted 2 (Sero 3 omitted).

C. However, among the above registered titleholders, ① Nonparty 1, 5, and Defendant 19 are neither the members of the clan of the (title omitted), nor the members of the Plaintiff clan (name omitted), Nonparty 2 (name omitted), Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 12, who are the lineal descendants of Nonparty 12, who are the lineal descendants of Nonparty 10-3, i.e., Nonparty 10 in the middle of the (name omitted), the (name omitted), and Defendant 19 are the lineal descendants of Nonparty 12, who are the lineal descendants of Nonparty 10-3. Nonparty 1 and 5, respectively, were dead and followed. As seen in paragraph (1), all of the Defendants of this case were the members of the first instance court, and the Plaintiff was the members of the clan, and the Plaintiff was not the members of the Plaintiff’s clan. Nonparty 2 (name omitted), Nonparty 3 and 4 are the heads of Nonparty 10 and the Plaintiff’s lineal descendants of Nonparty 11, the Plaintiff’s lineal descendants of Nonparty 11.

D. Preparation of a record of recognition and recognition of quasi-examination, which became the designated party by Nonparty 6

On April 4, 1989, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with Suwon District Court No. 89Gahap5730 (the case subject to quasi-deliberation) on April 4, 1989, and filed a lawsuit with respect to ① with respect to the Nam-ri, North Myeong-ri (number 2 omitted), the “25 persons, such as Nonparty 6, etc.” (number 2 omitted) as the Defendant (hereinafter “the Defendants of forest land number 2 omitted). The Defendants asserted that the above forest was title trust with the Plaintiff as of January 21, 1971, and sought the implementation of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the termination of title trust contract. ② In addition, in relation to the forest of this case (number 1 omitted), Nonparty 1, 2 (number 3 omitted), Nonparty 3, 4, Defendant 19, and Nonparty 5 (the Defendants’ heir of the forest of this case, including Defendant 13, 17, Defendant 17, Defendant 17, and Defendant 17, Defendant 19 and Defendant 5 (Defendant 1).

However, in the above case, Nonparty 6, one of the Defendants of forest land (number 2 omitted), was the Defendants of forest land in Dong, and Nonparty 6, one of whom was the Defendants of Dong forest land, as well as Nonparty 6, etc. as the Defendants of Dong forest land. Furthermore, on July 13, 1989, the Plaintiff’s claim was accepted and accepted on July 13, 1989, and thereafter, the protocol of recognition and recognition subject to quasi-examination (hereinafter “the protocol of recognition and recognition of this case”).

E. Registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff clan

In accordance with the letter of recognition of the instant forest on April 10, 1992, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the cancellation of the title trust as of May 22, 1989 with respect to the shares (total 5/6 shares) of Nonparty 1, 2 (Sero 3 omitted), Nonparty 3, 4, and Defendant 19 among the instant forest land. Meanwhile, with respect to the shares (one-six shares) of Nonparty 5 among the instant forest land on April 5, 1974, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the cancellation of the title trust in the name of the Plaintiff on behalf of the heir, at the same time, the registration of ownership transfer due to the termination of the title trust as of January 22, 1991 under the name of the Plaintiff on behalf of the heir, his heir on April 5, 194.

(f) Inheritance relationship;

On October 28, 1991, the non-party 1 died, and there was Defendant 1, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, 7, 11, and 12 as his inheritor. On August 29, 1997, the non-party 7 died and there was Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and 4 as his inheritor. The non-party 8 died on October 15, 200, and the non-party 9, Defendant 9, and 10 were the deceased non-party 1 as his inheritor at the first instance trial, and each of the above inheritors succeeded to the lawsuit as the non-party 2 (child number 3 omitted), the non-party 2 (the non-party 2 (the non-party 3 omitted), the non-party 2 died on the non-party 198, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 died on the non-party 197, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 died on the non-party 2.

G. (Name omitted) The progress of litigation against the plaintiff clan of the clan

(1) As above, after the registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the name of the plaintiff clan according to the above recognition protocol, the (title omitted) Gongsan filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff's (title omitted) 2001Kahap88, which is not the plaintiff's clan, for the title trustee or his heir to have the procedure for registration of ownership transfer for the reason of the cancellation of title trust with respect to the forest of this case, and for the plaintiff's representative, for the plaintiff's clan, the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the forest of this case, which was close around the plaintiff's clan, and for the first title trustee for the restoration of the true owner's name, the plaintiff argued that the forest of this case was registered in title by the plaintiff's clan, which is not the (title omitted) Kawon District Court.

(2) On June 20, 2002, in the judgment of the first instance court of this case (Ywon District Court Decision 2001Gahap8588), the (title omitted), and even if the (title omitted), the (name omitted), a person under title trust of the forest of this case, the court below rejected the lawsuit against the plaintiff in the part of the claim against the plaintiff's family based on the creditor's subrogation right on the ground that the plaintiff's claim for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, which was made pursuant to the registration of this case by subrogation of the title trustee, is not allowed on the ground that the right to claim the ownership transfer registration based on the registration of this case, is a preserved right, unless the registration of this case is revoked by a retrial. (In the above judgment, as seen above, the issue of res judicata effect of the registration of this case's recognition protocol was raised, not the plaintiff, but the defendant of this case, which is the kind of the (title omitted) clan, filed a new trial against the above registration statement of this case on December 24, 2002.

(3) The appellate court's decision (Seoul High Court No. 202Na44788, No. 990) that rejected the lawsuit against the plaintiff clans. ① The forest land of this case was under the circumstances of the non-party 26 and the non-party 3, who was the descendants of the non-party 10 who were the non-party 10's son at the time of the land situation, and ② the non-party 1, 5, and 2 were not the non-party 6 registered titleholders who completed the registration of ownership transfer of the forest of this case, but the non-party 2 (name omitted), the non-party 3, and the non-party 4 (name omitted), the non-party 4, the non-party 4, the non-party 6, the non-party 4, the non-party 4, the non-party 5's spouse's new forest land tax of this case, and the non-party 6, the non-party 1, the non-party 5, the non-party son's son and the deceased.

(4) The appeal by the court below (title omitted), but the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for the same reason as the above appellate court's judgment (Supreme Court Decision 2003Da41548 Delivered on October 15, 2004).

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 4-1 through 63, evidence Nos. 5-1 (the same as evidence No. 2), 1, 3 through 7, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the existence of a ground for quasi-examination

A. The defendants asserted that the above non-party 6 was the designated party for all the defendants of the case subject to quasi-deliberation (the Suwon District Court 89Dahap5739). However, the above non-party 6 did not have been selected as the designated party from non-party 1, defendant 19, 13, 16, 18, 14, 15, and 17, which is the non-party 1, defendant 19, 13, 16, 16, 18, 14, 15, and 17 among the defendants of the forest of this case, the above non-party 6 did not constitute "the defendants of this case's forest of this case's name omitted), but it is difficult to recognize the above facts merely by the evidence No. 10, and evidence No. 4-54 of the evidence No. 4, and it is not acceptable to accept the above assertion.

B. The Defendants asserted that, even if there is a domestic fact of selection, the claim concerning the forest of this case (number 2 omitted) and the claim concerning the forest of this case (number 1 omitted) is identical to the rights and obligations of majority and the cause of the claim is identical to that of the forest of this case. Thus, the part concerning the claim concerning the forest of this case cannot be designated as the Defendants of the forest of this case, although Nonparty 6 became the designated party for "the Defendants of the forest of this case" and the plaintiff's claim was prepared by recognizing the plaintiff's claim, since the part concerning the forest of this case in the report of recognition of this case concerning the forest of this case in this case should be revoked due to a quasi-examination under Articles 461 and 451 (1) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act.

According to the above facts, this case's forest land is deemed to have been registered in title trust rather than the plaintiff's clan (title omitted). Thus, in light of the whole purport of the arguments in the above case's (No. 10 and No. 570) concerning the reasons why the designated parties were selected in the above case's (No. 570), the above non-party 2 (No. 3 omitted) argued that the plaintiff's clan representative was entrusted with the title of the forest land in this case, and that the plaintiff's right to the plaintiff's land was not jointly owned by the plaintiff's non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 1 was not jointly owned by the plaintiff's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 1's title title.

C. As to this, the plaintiff, even if there are grounds for quasi-deliberation, it is illegal for five years to file a lawsuit for quasi-deliberation, which is the period of filing a retrial under Article 456 of the Civil Procedure Act. Since the defendants did not raise any objection for ten years after the recognition and recognition of the case, and thus granted the plaintiff the trust that the non-party 6's recognition and recognition based on the Defendants' selection act is legitimate, the request for retrial of this case cannot be allowed under the good faith principle, but the above grounds for retrial, which is recognized as defects, is not limited to the period of filing a retrial under Article 456 of the Civil Procedure Act pursuant to Article 457 of the same Act, and the above grounds alleged by the plaintiff alone, cannot be viewed as violating the good faith principle. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected.

3. Judgment on the merits

Furthermore, each statement of the health stand and Gap evidence of 3 through 7 (including the family number) on the merits is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff registered the forest of this case with title trust, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to each evidence of the above paragraph (1), since the forest of this case is recognized to have been held under title trust by the (name omitted), the forest of this case, such as the plaintiff's 1-g. (3) is not the plaintiff's clan, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the implementation of the procedure for transfer registration of ownership based on the termination of the forest of this case against the defendants on the premise that the plaintiff registered the forest of this case under title trust, is without merit,

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since the defendants' request for re-adjudications of this case is well-grounded, the part concerning the forest of this case among the claims for the recognition protocol of this case, that is, the part concerning the forest of this case as stated in Paragraph 1 of this decision shall be revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claim against the defendants under the premise that the plaintiff held a title trust of the forest of this case shall be dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance which concluded otherwise is unfair, and it is so revoked, and all of the plaintiff's claims shall be dismissed. It

Judges Kim Jong-dae (Presiding Judge)