Plaintiff (Law Firm Hun-Ba, Attorneys Hy-hee et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na14477 delivered on May 1, 201

March 4, 2015

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the restoration of the true title of registration with respect to each share of 6/27 of the respective real estate listed in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 14, 1911, the deceased non-party 6 was examined as follows: (a) the land listed in the [Attachment List 3 (hereinafter “the land of this case”) and the land listed in the Attached List 4 (hereinafter “the land of this case”) on June 15, 191; (b) the land listed in the Attached List 1 (hereinafter “the land of this case”) and the land listed in the Attached List 2 (hereinafter “the land of this case”) on June 15, 191, and the land listed in the Attached List 1 (hereinafter “the land of this case”) (hereinafter “the land of this case”) respectively.

B. On September 10, 1916, the deceased non-party 6 succeeded to the property and the family head of the deceased non-party 7, South Korea.

C. The deceased non-party 7 died on June 14, 1964, and the deceased non-party 7's co-inheritors have the wife non-party 8 (the deceased non-party 2/23 shares in inheritance), the plaintiff (the plaintiff 6/23), the non-party 9, the non-party 10 (the shares in inheritance each 4/23), the non-party 11, the non-party 12, the non-party 13, the non-party 14, the non-party 15 (the shares in inheritance each 1/23), the non-party 16 (the shares in inheritance 2/23).

D. As to each of the lands of this case, registration of ownership in the name of the plaintiff and non-party 17, non-party 18, non-party 19, non-party 5, and non-party 20 (hereinafter referred to as "the title holder of each of this case") has been completed respectively (hereinafter referred to as "each of this case registration of ownership"), under the Special Measures Act on the Registration of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502), the Suwon District Court, the registration office of registry office of 6249 through 62452 of December 26, 1994, the representative of the defendant (the non-party 18) was registered for sale on November 7, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "registration of ownership transfer") under the name of the plaintiff and non-party 17, non-party 18, and the non-party 20 (the title holder of each of this case").

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiff's assertion

The registration of the preservation of ownership and the transfer of ownership in each of the instant cases completed under the Act on Special Measures are false or forged, and the Defendant is merely a clan or a clan similar organization that was set up in around 1994, which was around the time of the completion of each of the instant registration of ownership transfer, and it cannot be recognized that the Defendant trusted each of the instant land to the deceased Nonparty 6 in around 191, and further, the Defendant did not prove that each of the instant sales contracts was made on November 7, 1982.

Therefore, each of the instant registrations of initial ownership preservation and ownership transfer registration were shouldered, and each of the instant lands was owned by the deceased Nonparty 6’s inheritors, including the Plaintiff, and was owned by the deceased Nonparty 6’s inheritors. As such, the Defendant, who is the final titleholder, is obliged to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground that the Plaintiff’s share of 6/27 shares, which is the Plaintiff’s share of inheritance, has been inherited by the Plaintiff

2) The defendant's assertion

The letter of guarantee attached at the time of registration of ownership preservation and ownership transfer cannot be deemed to have been false or forged. The Defendant, as the owner of each of the instant lands, held the title trust of each of the instant lands to the deceased Nonparty 6, and the holders of each of the instant registrations were transferred to the Defendant as the Defendant’s clan members under the Act on Special Measures again that the Defendant had held the title trust with him. Accordingly, each of the instant registrations in the name of the

B. Determination

1) Legal principles on the presumption of registration under the Act on Special Measures

A registration under the Act on Special Measures shall be presumed to conform to the substantive legal relationship, and a registration under the said Act shall not be reversed unless there is any proof that the letter of guarantee or confirmation under the said Act was false or forged, or that the registration was not legally registered due to other grounds. Here, false letter of guarantee or confirmation refers to a letter of guarantee or confirmation that the substantive details of the change of rights are inconsistent with the truth. Even if a person who has completed registration under the Act on Special Measures claims that he/she acquired a right according to the reason for acquisition, if he/she claims that the reason for acquisition stated in the letter of guarantee or confirmation is different from the fact, it cannot be deemed that the registration under the Act on Special Measures for Special Measures for Special Measures for Special Measures for Special Measures for Special Measures for the sake of the apparent fact that it is impossible to complete the registration under the Act on Special Measures for Special Measures for Special Measures for Special Measures for Special Measures for Special Measures for the sake of the apparent fact that the assertion is merely a defect in the presumption of the completed registration under the Act on Special Measures for Special Measures for Special Measures for Special Measures, unless there are special circumstances.

2) Whether each registration of ownership preservation of the instant case and the letter of guarantee attached at the time of registration of ownership transfer have been false or forged

A) First, according to Gap evidence Nos. 8-6, 8, 10, 28, 29, and Eul Nos. 1 through 4-1, and 2-2, it is recognized that the letter of guarantee related to each of the respective registrations of ownership preservation of this case was discarded, and Nonparty 1, 2, and 3 affix their seals on each of the respective registrations of ownership transfer of this case (hereinafter "the letter of guarantee of this case") as a guarantor. The letter of guarantee of this case contains the purport that "the defendant purchased each of the lands of this case from the holder of the ownership preservation of this case on November 7, 1982."

B) According to Gap evidence Nos. 8-18, 19, 30 through 34, 36, and 38, the non-party 16, who is the plaintiff's Dong, stated that the writing or seal of the letter of guarantee (Evidence No. 8-6, 8, 10 of the evidence No. 8-6, 8, 10 of the letter of guarantee of this case) of this case (the Suwon District Court 2010Da79813, the same court 2012Na35481), against the defendant, the non-party 16, who is the plaintiff's Dong, stated that the pen of the letter of guarantee of this case is not his own own, but is not his own, and that the letter of guarantee of this case or the seal of this case is not his own, and that the non-party 2 stated that the plaintiff was not the owner of each of the rights of registration of this case.

C) However, it cannot be readily concluded that Nonparty 3, the guarantor, who served as the basis for the registration of each transfer of ownership in this case, is the guarantor at the time of the registration of each transfer of ownership in this case only with the statement Nos. 8-27 through 29 alone. Although Nonparty 3 is the guarantor of each registration of preservation of ownership in this case and each transfer of ownership in this case, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence and the overall purport of each of the above evidence, namely, ① the address of Nonparty 1 is consistent with the address indicated in the letter of guarantee in this case as at 1994, and the seal affixed to the ledger of appointment and dismissal of the guarantor, and ② the body of Nonparty 2 appeared to be identical with the body of the letter of guarantee in this case, and Nonparty 3 testified that the body of Nonparty 2 appeared to be the same as the body of the pen in this case. In light of the fact that Nonparty 3’s domicile recorded in the ledger of appointment and dismissal of the guarantor, and its seal is consistent with the domicile in this case.

3) Whether the Defendant’s assertion on title trust has proved to the extent that it is not true

A) In addition to each land of this case, the deceased non-party 6 was aware of the land of ○○-ri (number 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 omitted). The above land is currently registered as the ownership of the "Seoul Hong FranC's public clan" (hereinafter referred to as the "members of the clan"), and since the defendant asserted a title trust on each land of this case and submitted the minutes of the members of the clan and the accounting books, etc., it is a question whether the defendant is the same clan as the members of the members of the clan.

B) The identity and title trust of the defendant and the clan of the trade union

(1) In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective descriptions and arguments of Gap evidence 8-4, 5, 22 through 26, Eul evidence 6 through 9, 13, 14 through 17, and 19 (including each serial number, if any), as stated in the judgment of the above related lawsuit (No. 8-59, No. 12-1, No. 12-2), it is reasonable to view that the defendant and the member of the clan are the same clan as stated in the judgment of the above related lawsuit, and that the defendant trusted the deceased non-party 6 of the land of this case under title trust.

(A) The Defendant asserted that the name of the clan and the Defendant used the same mixedly, and that the minutes of the meeting of January 1, 2005 contain the (or the Gu administration) side of the court below. After the registration of the Defendant’s name as to each of the land of this case, no objection was raised from the members of the court below or the clan, and the Defendant submitted the minutes and the account books of the court below as evidence in the relevant lawsuit. Furthermore, the Defendant submitted the minutes and the account books of the court below as evidence in the relevant lawsuit. The address of Nonparty 17, one of the title holders of each of the registration of preservation of ownership, is the same as the domicile of the court below, and the president of the court below's branch of the court below among the members of the court below's branch of the court below's branch of the court below's branch of the court below's non-party 21, which is the Defendant's representative, and it appears that the non-party 18, the former president of the court below's general meeting of the court below.

(B) The accounting books of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the family in 194 (No. 7-2) include the registration fee for the special measure and the expense for the special measure of the member of the member of the member of the member of the family in 1994, and each of the land of this case is written in detail in the list of the member of the member of the member of the member of the member of the family in 194 (for the land of this case No. 4, the number of the members of the family in 18, the non-party 17, the non-party 19, the non-party 19, the non-party 20, and the plaintiff all of the members of the member of the member of the member family in 194, and there was no dispute about the ownership of each of the land of this case until 1981.

(2) As to the fact that the Defendant is a clan set aside from the clan of the deceased, it is difficult to believe that the entry of the evidence No. 8 No. 58, Eul No. 6, Eul No. 1, 5, and Eul No. 11-3. According to each of the evidence No. 8-5, No. 9-5, and No. 6, the land of the above ○○○ (number No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 omitted) (number 1, 4, and 5 omitted), other than each of the land of this case, among the land under circumstances of the deceased Non-Party No. 6, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the deceased non-party No. 7 name on the ground of the deceased's inheritance, and some shares were transferred to other members of the deceased, and there was no evidence to recognize that the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of each of the above clan No. 956, May 29, 1985.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, it is difficult to view that each of the above registrations has been broken, since the letter of guarantee or confirmation, which forms the basis for each of the registration of preservation of ownership and transfer of ownership, was forged, or that the title trust relation, which is the ground for the Defendant’s assertion, was proven to be not true.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Maximum-to-unified

1) As to this, the Plaintiff stated that he himself is the nominal owner of the registration of ownership preservation of the instant case and that he is aware of the existence of a clan, the title holder of which is the next hand, and Nonparty 4, the next hand, is a joint creation

2) On April 30, 1994, the representative Nonparty 18 filed an application for registration number of each real estate in the name of the clan on behalf of the non-party 17, who is the representative of the clan of the clan of the clan, on November 4, 1994.