In a case where the plaintiff's clans Association has completed the registration of transfer for the real estate in the name of the deceased, village, etc. for convenience, whether such registration is null and void.

In making the registration of ownership transfer for the real estate in dispute, the registration cannot be deemed to be null and void as a matter of course, on the ground that it is easy for the Plaintiff-friendly association to register the real estate in its name or in its name on the grounds that it is easy for it to dispose of it if it is registered in its name or in its name.

Articles 27 and 30 of the Registration of Real Estate Act

Plaintiff Cho Jin-jin Association

Korea

Seoul Central District Court (70 Ghana12451) in the first instance trial

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The appellate court's costs are assessed against the defendant.

The plaintiff confirms that the real estate recorded in the attached list is owned by the plaintiff.

On September 2, 1968, the defendant received from the plaintiff about the real estate stated in the attached Table (1) on September 2, 1968, the registration of transfer of ownership for the reason of reversion on September 11, 1948, the registration of transfer of ownership for the reason of reversion on the right, the registration of transfer of ownership for the reason of reversion on September 2, 1968, the registration of transfer of ownership for the reason of reversion on September 11, 1948, and the registration procedure of cancellation of transfer of ownership for the real estate stated in the attached Table (3) on November 6, 1968, the receipt of the same registry office on September 1, 1948, shall be implemented.

The court costs are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

(1) According to the annexed list (1). (2) The above real estate is registered under the name of the non-party 1, non-party 3, non-party 1, non-party 2, and the title transfer registration for the above real estate is completed under the name of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, which is the name of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the name of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the name of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the name of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the name of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the name of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the name of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the name of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the name of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the name of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the name of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the name of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, and the name of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport.

The defendant asserts that each transfer registration under the name of the plaintiff's family council shall be null and void in violation of the provisions of Articles 27 and 30 of the Registration of Real Estate Act. However, since the plaintiff's family council registered under the above name cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course on the ground that the registration was made by the plaintiff's family council, it cannot be deemed null and void as a matter of course, and even if the registration is null and void, there is no complaint as to the plaintiff's family council's ownership. Thus, the above assertion is groundless.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of ownership of the above real estate and cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant in the purport of the claim is justified, and the original judgment is just, and the original judgment is just, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the defendant's appeal and the burden of litigation costs.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Noh Jin-Gyeong (Presiding Justice)