The case holding that although the plaintiffs' mother-child sold the inherited property without authority, it is contrary to the good faith to assert that the plaintiffs' act of disposal is null and void in the event that the plaintiffs knew of such act of disposal and it exceeded considerable benefits.

Although the parent-child sold the plaintiffs' inherited property without authority, the plaintiffs received economic benefits from the parent-child from the proceeds of the disposal of the property, and it seems that they made an act of disposal by the parent-child due to various circumstances, and there is no special objection that seven years have passed since other inheritors, who were in the village, would recover their shares through the lawsuit, and then immediately file a lawsuit, and even if the mother-child older than the plaintiff who illegally disposed of inherited property was claimed for damages from the purchaser due to his own fault, the claim of this case is against the principle of trust and good faith.

Article 2 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

5. Monopolym et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 9Na12864 delivered on September 10, 1993

1. The part of the judgment below against the defendants shall be revoked.

2. The claims of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 are all dismissed;

3. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

4. Of the litigation costs, the costs of appeal between the designated parties 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 and the Defendants are assessed against the designated parties, and the costs of appeal between the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Defendants are assessed against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

Of the real estate listed in the attached list No. 5, the defendant Han Hong Culture and Arts Promotion Corporation, and the Korean Culture and Arts Promotion Institute confirm that the shares in the attached list No. 4 and 5 among the real estate listed in the attached list No. 5 are owned by the plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter the plaintiff) and the designated parties. As to the shares in the attached list No. 4 among the real estate listed in the attached list No. 4, as to the shares in the attached list No. 4, the defendant Korean Culture Promotion Institute of Culture and Arts completed under No. 11769 on Jun. 4, 1985; the transfer registration of ownership completed under No. 23421 on September 26, 1987; the transfer registration of ownership completed under No. 23421 on May 10, 1985; the transfer registration of ownership transfer registration completed under No. 9702 on May 10, 1985; the defendant Korean Culture Promotion Institute of Culture and Arts Promotion shall receive the ownership transfer registration under the same title No. 2382137.29.

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff shall be revoked. The defendant Hong Feul is the plaintiff's ownership among the real estate listed in the attached Table 5, the defendant Korean Culture Promotion Corporation, and the Korean Culture and Arts Promotion Institute, as shown in the attached Table 4 and 5, as shown in the plaintiff's share of inheritance among the real estate listed in the attached Table 4 and 5. The plaintiff is the plaintiff. As to the share of the attached Table 4 among the real estate listed in the attached Table 4, the defendant Korean Culture Promotion Institute completed the transfer registration of ownership pursuant to Article 11769 on June 4, 1985, the receipt of the ownership transfer registration of Suwon District Court No. 23421 on September 26, 1987, the ownership transfer registration of the real estate listed in the attached Table 5, the share of the inheritance share of the attached Table 5 completed under the receipt of the same registry office on May 10, 1985, the ownership transfer registration of the defendant Korean Culture Promotion Institute completed under Article 970303 of the same day, the receipt of ownership transfer registration of 29237.29.27.

shall comply with any of the registration procedures for cancellation.

The Defendants: The part of the judgment of the lower court against the Defendants shall be revoked, and all corresponding designated parties 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 shall be dismissed.

1. Determination on this safety defense

The defendants asserted that the real estate listed in the attached list is jointly inherited by the plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter the plaintiff et al.), and the co-defendant 1 of the original trial, and that the plaintiff et al.'s claim for recovery of inheritance shares is ultimately a lawsuit claiming recovery of inheritance under Articles 99 and 982 of the Civil Code, under the premise that the co-defendant 1 of the original trial infringed on the plaintiff et al.'s inheritance shares. Thus, the plaintiff et al.'s claim of this case is not a ground for infringing the plaintiff et al.'s inheritance shares, but a claim of this case by the plaintiff et al. is not a ground for infringing the plaintiff et al.'s inheritance shares, and it is apparent in the record that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the co-defendant 1 of the original trial as to the real estate listed in the attached list is based on the judgment that the plaintiff et al.'s claim of this case is a lawsuit claiming

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1 to 5 (each certified copy of each judgment), Gap evidence 2-1 to 5 (each forest and land register), Gap evidence 3-1 to 4 (each certified transcript), Gap evidence 4-1 to 9 (each certified family register) and Gap evidence 5-1 to 6 (each certified family register), and there is no counter-proof.

(1) The real estate stated in the attached list was originally owned by Nonparty 1, but Nonparty 1 died on September 22, 1961.

(2) On December 8, 1970, the co-defendant 1 of the court below, who was the wife of Nonparty 2 (the death of October 26, 1960), who was the fourth-son of Nonparty 1, filed a lawsuit for the performance of the ownership transfer registration procedure against Nonparty 1, as Seoul District Court Branch 7Da1418, which was the Seoul District Court Branch Branch 77Da1418, on the ground that he purchased the real estate listed in the attached list from Nonparty 1 after the death of Nonparty 1, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of the co-defendant 1 of the court below on December 16, 197 on the real estate listed in the attached list under the status of Suwon District Court Decision 8401, which was received by Suwon

(3) On April 20, 1985, on the basis of the above registration by Co-Defendant 1 of the court below as to the real estate stated in the attached Table No. 4, the registration of ownership transfer was made in sequence in the name of the defendant Korea Culture Promotion Corporation as the receipt by the same registry office under Article 8049 on April 20, 1985, and as of June 4, 1985, the receipt by the same registry office under Article 11769 on June 4, 1985.

(4) On April 20, 1985, based on the above registration of Co-Defendant 1 of the court below as to the real estate stated in the attached Table No. 5 of the attached Table No. 5, the registration of ownership transfer was made in sequence in the name of the defendant Scar Pung Pung Pung Pung Pung Pung Pung Pung as the receipt of the same registry office on May 10, 1985 as the receipt of the same registry office on April 20, 1985, under Article 9702 of the same registry office on May 10, 1985, the provisional registration of the right to claim for ownership transfer transfer registration was made in accordance with the provisional registration No. 27328 of the same registry office on December 20, 1985, the ownership transfer registration based on the above provisional registration was made in order in the name of the defendant Korea Culture and Arts Promotion Institute under Article 23421.

(5) According to the death of Nonparty 1, Nonparty 3, the inheritor of Australia, succeeded to 6/20 shares in the Republic of Korea, Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 5 (Death on June 18, 1943), the bereaved family members of Nonparty 2, the male who were the inheritor of Australia, 4/20 shares in each of the 20 shares, and 6/7 shares in each of the 20 shares of Nonparty 6 and the 20 shares in each of the 20 shares.

(6) At the time of Nonparty 1’s death, Nonparty 2’s co-defendant 1, the wife, the Plaintiff 2, the South son, the second South son Nonparty 8, the son 1, 3, 4, and 5, and Nonparty 8 died on October 3, 1965, and the inheritance share was inherited by Nonparty 1, the co-defendant 1 of the original judgment, and eventually, Nonparty 2 succeeded to 4/110 shares (4/20 x 11), 1, 3, 4, and 5 each (4/20 x 111) in respect of Nonparty 1’s property.

B. If so, the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 4 and 5 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”) is owned by Nonparty 1’s heir, and the above preservation registration in the name of co-defendant 1 of the court below is null and void by the judgment of nullification of cause against the deceased. Thus, each registration made in the name of the Defendants is also null and void.

3. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. First of all, the defendants asserted that the period of acquisition by possession was completed in around March 1957 when the co-defendant 1 donated the land of this case from the non-party 1 on the donation of this case from the non-party 1 around 1957, or that it was occupied as the owner on the register without negligence since the acquisition by prescription was completed in December 25, 1987, since the acquisition by prescription was completed in December 25, 1987, since the acquisition by prescription on the register was completed, the above registration in the name of the defendants was effective in accordance with the substantive relations. However, the testimony by the witness of the court below on the fact that the co-defendant 1 occupied the land of this case from around 1957 to around 1957 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise, and the above assertion is not reasonable at the time when the co-defendant 1 of the court below completed the registration of ownership preservation.

B. Next, the defendants paid part of the proceeds from the disposal of the land in this case to the plaintiff. The plaintiff et al. used the remaining part for the plaintiff et al. or divided them into the plaintiff et al. who are children. Further, since the plaintiff et al. did not raise any objection against the disposal act by the joint defendant 1 in the court below, the plaintiff et al. confirmed the disposal act by the joint defendant 1 in the court below's judgment. Further, the plaintiff et al. in the court below's judgment in favor of the plaintiff et al. as of the land in this case as of December 26, 197, after completion of the registration of preservation of ownership on April 30, 195, after disposal of the land in this case, they knew that their private villages et al. were to file a lawsuit for invalidation of the cause as to the real estate stated in the separate sheet including the land in this case, the plaintiff et al. did not claim against the principle of trust and good faith as provided by Article 2 of the Civil Act.

그러므로 살피건대, 앞서 본 각 증거와 갑 제9호증(증인신문조서등본),을 제3호증(저축예금입금표)의 각 기재와 당심증인 원심공동피고 1의 증언과 선정자 1, 2의 각 본인신문결과(뒤에서 믿지 아니하는 부분 각 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 원심공동피고 1은 이 사건 토지를 1985. 3.11. 경 위 김유주, 강희덕에게 대금 60,000,000원에 매도하는 계약을 체결한 후 같은 해 4. 15. 위 매수인들을 대리한 소외 최난수로부터 잔금 43,000,000원을 지급받아 그중 금 30,000,000원을 농업협동조합중앙회 천호동 지점에 개설된 원고 명의의 저축예금통장에 입금한 사실에 비추어 적어도 원고는 그 당시 원심공동피고 1의 처분행위를 추인하였다고 할 것이며( 원고는 원심공동피고 1이 자신 몰래 위 통장을 개설하여 임의로 입금시켰다가 자신 몰래 이를 사용하였다고 주장하나, 그 당시 원고와 원심공동피고 1이 천호동에서 같이 동거하고 있었던 점, 원고 주장에 따르더라도 그 당시에는 모친인 원심공동피고 1과 사이가 나빠지기 전이었던 점 등에 비추어 원심공동피고 1 임의로 원고와 상의 없이 하였다고 인정하기 어렵다), 나아가 다음과 같은 사정, 즉 원심공동피고 1은 1960. 경 남편과 일찍이 사별하였으나 별다른 재산이 없어 원고 및 선정자들인 6남매(1965. 이전에는 7남매)를 양육하는 데 상당한 어려움을 겪었던 사실, 원심공동피고 1은 위 양육비 및 생활비 등을 벌기 위하여 운수업, 일수놀이, 계 등을 하여 왔으나 이것 역시 잘 되지 아니하여 이 사건 토지의 매도시인 1985. 경에도 빚만 지고 있었던 사실, 그리하여 원심공동피고 1은 1985.3.11. 경 이 사건 토지를 대금 60,000,000원에 처분하여 그중 금 17,000,000원은 소외 3의 장남인 소외 9 등에게 분배하여 주고 금 6,000,000원은 처분한 이 사건 토지 지상의 선조분묘이장비로 사용하고도 금 37,000,000원이라는 상당한 금원이 남아 있었으므로 어떤 형태로든 자녀들인 원고 및 선정자들에게 일부씩이라도 지출되었을 것으로 보여지는 사실( 원심공동피고 1은 처분대금으로 그 동안 부담한 자신의 채무를 변제하는 데 사용하였다고 하나, 이 채무 역시 자신 및 자녀들을 위한 것이므로 달리 볼 것이 아니다), 그 후 원심공동피고 1이 이 사건 토지 지상에 위치한 선조분묘를 이장할 때 원고와 선정자 1의 남편인 소외 10이 참석하였는데 그 당시 사정으로 보아 원심공동피고 1에게 분묘이장비 금 6,000,000원이라는 거금을 소지하고 있을 능력이 없으며 갑자기 이 사건 토지 지상에 위치한 선조분묘를 이장하여야 할 마땅한 이유도 없었을 것이므로 원고나 소외 10을 통한 선정자 1로서는 원심공동피고 1에게 그에 관한 경위를 묻거나 또는 여러 사정으로 이 사건 토지의 처분을 짐작할 수 있었을 것으로 보여지는 사실(더구나 원고는 원심공동피고 1과 동거할 당시이므로 더욱 그렇다), 그 후 원고 및 선정자들은 1985.8. 경 소외 3의 상속인들인 소외 9 등이 원심공동피고 1 및 피고들을 상대로 이 사건 토지를 포함한 별지목록 기재 부동산에 관하여 원인무효 소송을 제기하였다는 사실을 알았으나 여지껏 자신들을 양육하여 준 모친을 상대로 소송을 제기할 수도 없으려니와 또한 이 사건 토지의 처분대금 중 상당 부분이 자신들을 위하여 사용되었을 것이라고 생각하여 이에 가담하지 아니한 사실, 그러나 그 후 처분한 이 사건 토지의 시가가 상승하고 먼저 소송을 제기한 사촌형제들이 위 소송에서 승소하고 그와 별도로 소외 4의 상속인들인 소외 11, 12도 원심공동피고 1 및 피고들을 상대로 원인무효소송을 제기하여 승소하자 원고 및 선정자들도 자신들도 소송을 통하여 자신의 지분을 찾을 수 있다고 생각하여 서로 의논한 끝에 모친인 원심공동피고 1을 포함한 피고들을 상대로 하여 1992.12.19. 이 사건 소송을 제기한 사실, 한편 원심공동피고 1은 이 사건 토지의 처분시에는 원고와 동거하였고 그 후 몇년 후부터 현재까지 큰딸인 선정자 1과 동거하고 있으며 원고 및 선정자들은 이 사건 토지의 처분과 관련하여 원심공동피고 1을 형사 고소하지 아니한 사실(원고 및 선정자들의 이 사건 소송 제기시 이미 공소시효가 완성되었다), 이 사건 소송 제기 당시 늙은 할머니인 원심공동피고 1은 자력이 전무하여 이 사건이 원고들의 승소로 끝나 매수자인 피고 임흥균으로부터 손해배상청구를 당한다고 하더라도 사실상으로는 아무 부담이 없는 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이에 일부 반하는 갑 제6호증의 1(인증서)의 기재와 원심공동피고 1의 일부증언과 선정자 1, 2의 일부 본인신문결과는 믿지 아니하며 달리 반증이 없다.

If the above circumstances are as follows, the plaintiff and the designated parties shall be deemed to have ratified the disposal act of the land in this case by the joint defendant 1, who is the mother of the court below, even though they have impliedly ratified the disposal act, and even if not, the plaintiff and the designated parties, who are considered to have gained a benefit from the disposal of the land in any form as the children of the joint defendant 1 of the court below, did not raise an objection against the disposal act of the land in this case for not less than seven years, which is a considerable period from the time of the disposal, and as long as the above circumstances are seen, the above claim in this case by the plaintiff and the designated parties shall not be deemed to have expired in accordance with the good faith

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the claims of this case by the plaintiff and the designated parties shall be dismissed without merit. Since the judgment of the court below is unfair on the part of the designated parties other than the plaintiff, the appeal by the defendants shall be accepted, and the part against the defendants shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed, without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal shall be dismissed, and the costs of appeal between the designated parties and the defendants shall be borne by the plaintiff (attached Form omitted) and the costs of appeal between the plaintiff and the designated parties shall be borne by the plaintiff (attached Form omitted).

Judges Lee Yong-il (Presiding Judge)