Whether the action of confirmation by one of the co-owners seeking the confirmation of co-ownership by all co-owners is legitimate or not;

The lawsuit seeking confirmation of co-ownership of co-ownership by the co-owners against the third party, rather than seeking confirmation of co-ownership by all co-owners, is a necessary co-litigation and the whole co-owners should become the plaintiff, and one co-owner cannot bring such lawsuit (this lawsuit cannot be deemed to fall under the act of preserving the lawsuit). Thus, the lawsuit of the above confirmation brought by the co-owners alone by one co-owner shall be dismissed.

Article 63 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and four others

Seoul Civil History District Court (79 Gohap1900)

1. The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

2. The Plaintiff:

A. On December 12, 1962, Defendant 1: (a) the procedure for the cancellation registration of the preservation registration made on December 12, 1962 by the Suwon District Court No. 8889 on the real estate recorded in the Schedule No. 1 List;

B. Defendant 2: (a) on June 12, 1971, the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in accordance with No. 5969 of the receipt of the same registry office on June 12, 1971;

C. Defendant 3: (a) on May 20, 1976, the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration in accordance with No. 3988 of the receipt of the same registry office on May 20, 1976;

D. On September 7, 1976, Defendant 4 Co., Ltd.: (a) the registration procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration as set forth in No. 6340 of the receipt of the same registry office on September 7, 1976 and the registration procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration as set forth in No. 1701 of the receipt of the same registry office on February 26, 1976;

F. The defendant Industrial Bank of Korea shall perform each procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of establishment of a mortgage on each of the adjoining real estates listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, No. 711 of the same registry offices as of November 8, 1976, No. 5789 of the receipt on July 21, 197, No. 5790 of the receipt on July 20, 197, No. 9390 of the receipt on December 6, 197, and No. 1099 of the receipt on November 3, 1978.

3. The plaintiff's remaining claims shall be dismissed.

4. All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder by the Defendants.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendants perform the obligations specified in Paragraph (2) of the main text, and defendant 1 shall perform the procedure for cancellation registration of preservation registration specified in Paragraph (2) (a) of the attached Form 2 with respect to real estate stated in the attached Form 2 list.

The co-ownership of 1/2 of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 and 2 is confirmed that the Plaintiff's co-ownership shares, and the remaining co-ownership of 1/2 is owned by Nonparty 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13, who is the deceased Nonparty 1's property heir.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants in the first and second instances.

1. As to the claim against Defendant 1 seeking the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership relating to the real estate recorded in the separate sheet No. 2, the claim shall be considered first.

On December 12, 1962, the Plaintiff initially received the Suwon District Court's 8889 on December 12, 1962, as to the real estate stated in the attached list No. 2, the registration of ownership transfer was made in order in the name of Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Defendant 4) on the ground that each registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of Defendant 2 and Defendant 4 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Defendant 4). However, since the above preservation registration in the attached list No. 3-2 is null and void as it is an official document, the Plaintiff is seeking cancellation of the registration. However, according to the contents stated in the attached list No. 3-2, the registration of ownership transfer in the attached list No. 2 is not transcribed, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant 2, which is the registration thereafter, is stated only after the registration is entered in the ownership transfer registration in the attached list

Therefore, the lawsuit on the part of the claim shall be dismissed as unlawful.

2. We examine the claim that the real estate recorded in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 against the Defendants is co-ownership by the Plaintiff and the deceased Nonparty 1’s heir.

Despite the fact that the real estate recorded in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 is co-owned by the deceased non-party 1's heir as stated in the plaintiff's purport, the defendants dispute co-owners' ownership by completing each period of preservation registration, ownership transfer registration, or establishment registration of neighboring mortgage.

However, the lawsuit where co-owners do not seek confirmation of their co-ownership right against the third party, but the co-owners' co-ownership of co-ownership is a necessary co-litigation and the whole co-owners should become the plaintiff, and one co-owner cannot bring such lawsuit (it cannot be deemed that such lawsuit is filed by preservation). Thus, the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff alone shall be dismissed as well.

3. We examine the remaining claims of the plaintiff.

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1 내지 8(각 제적등본), 갑 제2호증(호적등본), 공문서이므로 그 진정성립이 추정되는 갑 제7호증, 갑 제9호증(각 제적등본), 갑 제5호증, 갑 제10호증(각 호적등본)의 각 기재내용과 원심의 서류검증결과를 종합하면, 경기 이천군 부발면 무촌리 (지번 1 생략) 임야 6정 4단 9무보가 본래 망 소외 14의 소유로 사정되어 있었던 사실, 위 소외인은 1922. 5. 10. 사망하였는데 그 장남 망 소외 15는 1913. 3. 10. 미혼인체로 이미 사망하였으므로 그 차남 망 소외 16이 그 호주 및 재산상속을 하였고 소외 16은 소외 17과 혼인하여 딸 소외 18을 출산한후 1936. 5. 24. 사망하여 당시의 관습법에 따라 소외 16의 어머니이며 소외 14의 유처인 망 소외 19가 그 호주 및 재산상속을 한 사실, 소외 19는 1949. 1. 11. 사망하였는데 그 당시 소외 16의 딸 소외 18은 1936. 6. 28.에 이미 사망하고 없었으며 소외 16의 처 소외 17은 1936. 5. 24.에 소외 20과 재혼하여 혼인신고까지 마치고 그 가에 입적하였으나 소외 16 가의 호적에서는 제적되지 않고 있었으며 소외 17을 제외하고 보면, 소외 14, 16 가에는 호주상속을 할 사람이 아무도 남아있지 않고 다만 소외 14와 소외 19 사이에서 출생하여 1924.과 1937.에 이미 각각 출가한 딸들인 원고와 망 소외 1만이 소외 19로부터 재산을 상속할 수 있는 위치에 있게 된 사실, 그후 1957. 8. 1. 소외 1은 사망하여 그 재산은 청구취지기재의 소외인들이 공동으로 상속하게 된 사실 및 소외 19가 사망하고 나자 호적공무원은 1956. 7. 법원의 허가를 얻어 직권으로 소외 17이 소외 19로부터 소외 14, 16 가의 호주상속을 한 것으로 호적에 기재하였다가 1964. 3. 18.에 법원의 허가에 의하여 소외 17이 1936. 8. 18.에 소외 20과 재혼한 사실이 기재되면서 비로소 호적에서 제적되게 된 사실을 인정할 수 있고 반증이 없는바, 원고는 원고와 소외 1의 상속인들이 소외 14 재산의 공동상속인이라고 주장하고 피고들은 소외 17이 재혼하였다 하더라도 소외 16 가의 호적에서 제적된 일이 없으니 소외 17이 소외 19로부터 호주 및 재산상속을 하였다고 볼 것이라고 다투므로 살피건대, 1936. 당시의 호적관계법령인 호적령(1922. 12. 18. 부령 154호) 제84조와 호적령 시행수속(1923. 3. 조선총독부훈령 제115호)부록 제4호 호적 기재례에 의하면 혼가에서 다시 재혼하여 타가에 입적할 때에는 당사자의 본적(혼가 본적)과 호주성명 및 실가의 본적과 호주성명 등을 기재하여 혼인신고를 하면 되고 그 혼인신고를 받은 호적공무원은 신혼인가의 호적에 구혼인가의 본적 및 실가의 본적을 모두 기재하게 되어 있는데 앞에서 본 증거들에 의하면 소외 17이 재혼한 소외 20 가의 호적부에는 소외 17이 1936. 8. 18.에 소외 20과 혼인신고하여 입적한 것으로 되어 있고 그 사유란에는 구혼인가의 본적과 실가의 본적 및 각 호주와의 관계가 기재되어 있고 소외 17의 실가인 소외 21 가의 호적에는 소외 17은 제적되어 있고 그 사유란에 소외 16과의 혼인, 소외 16의 사망으로 인한 혼인 해소, 소외 20과의 재혼 사유가 모두 기재되어 있는 사실을 알 수 있으므로 소외 17은 소외 20에게 재혼하면서 당시의 법령에 맞춘 적법한 혼인신고를 하였다고 보기에 넉넉하고 그렇다면 소외 17이 소외 14, 16가의 호적부에 그냥 남아있게 된 것은 오로지 호적공무원의 과실로 인한 것이라고 할 것인즉 소외 19가 사망하였을 당시에는 소외 17은 이미 재혼으로 거가하여 호주상속을 할 수 없게 되었다고 할 것이며, 소외 19로부터는 원고와 망 소외 1이 각기 1/2의 비율로 재산상속을 하였고 소외 1의 사망으로 청구취지기재 소외인들이 위 1/2을 공동상속하였다고 할 것이다.

On the other hand, as evidence Nos. 3-1, 2-1, and official document, Gap evidence Nos. 6 (forest map), Gap evidence Nos. 8-1 through 10 (each copy of the register) presumed to have been established, and considering the whole purport of the pleadings of the parties as a result of the examination of documents by the court below, since the above real estate registration Nos. 4-1, 6-4, 9-4, non-party 1 was destroyed on December 12, 1962 as well as the above real estate registration No. 6-3-5, 6-3, 5-2, which was part of the above real estate registration No. 889, and the registration No. 1, 1965, which was entered in the name of the defendant No. 2, as well as the ownership transfer registration No. 4-2, and the ownership transfer registration No. 1, which was entered in the name of the defendant No. 1, the ownership registration No. 4-2, as well as the ownership registration No. 1-2, as the above new ownership registration No.

The Defendants first asserted that the real estate in this case was owned by the deceased non-party 14 and entrusted the name of the deceased non-party 14, the deceased non-party 14, the father of the deceased non-party 14, but the non-party 14 died on 1922, the title trust contract was terminated and it was donated to the deceased non-party 24, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 22, and the defendant 1 succeeded to the real estate in succession through the deceased non-party 24 through his father's father's father's father's father's father's non-party 22, and even if not, the real estate in this case was transferred to the deceased non-party 16, the deceased non-party 14 and the deceased non-party 22, the most near the deceased non-party 1's deceased non-party 1 and the defendant's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's death.

The defendants, after the death of the non-party 14, occupy the forest of this case as owned by the non-party 24 and the children have succeeded to the defendant 1 through the non-party 22. Even if the period of prescriptive acquisition expires in 1942 after the death of the non-party 14 and the non-party 22 had been believed to have succeeded to the forest of this case and had been occupied and managed by the non-party 16. Thus, the defendants asserted that the period of prescriptive acquisition was completed in 1956 after the death of the non-party 16 and the non-party 22 had no other reason to view that the non-party 24 had occupied the real estate of this case as owned by the non-party 1 and 3 (Examination Protocol) and that the non-party 25's intention to own the real estate of this case was non-party 1 as owned by the non-party 1 and the non-party 25's heir's new owner's right of possession after the death of the non-party 16.

4. As seen above, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted within the scope of seeking implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration for each registration in the name of the defendants as to the real estate stated in the order of this case, and the lawsuit of the remaining part of the claim is unlawful and thus is dismissed. Since the original judgment differs from this conclusion, it shall be modified in the same manner as the disposition, and the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants in both the first and second instances.

Judges Kim Jong-Gyeong (Presiding Judge)