Whether the obligation to implement the transfer transfer registration procedure is exempted;

In the case of selling land belonging to the State, if the purchaser completely pays the purchase price, the ownership is acquired even if the registration of ownership transfer is not completed, but the State is not exempt from the obligation to implement the procedure.

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. According to the expansion of the purport of the claim of the Plaintiff ○○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, and Kim○-maid in the trial of the party branch, the Defendant Republic of Korea shall implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the grounds of sale on August 4, 1958 with respect to each of the pertinent inheritance shares listed in the separate sheet among the Plaintiff ○○○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, Kim○, and Kim○-40 forest land in Daejeon ○-dong, Daejeon ○-dong, Daejeon ○-

3. The total costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

4. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the Plaintiff Kim○ and Kim○ in paragraph 2 of the judgment was modified as follows by the reduction of claims in the trial.

Defendant Republic of Korea shall implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on August 4, 1958 with respect to each of the relevant inheritance shares listed in the separate sheet among the 0-40 square meters of 661 square meters of ○○-dong, Daejeon-dong, Daejeon ○○-dong, and Kim○-dong.

1. Purport of claim

Defendant 1: (a) performed the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on July 7, 198 by the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, 3364 on the land size of 0-40 forest land in Daejeon ○○-dong, Daejeon, and the Defendant Republic of Korea performed the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration; (b) performed the procedure for registration of ownership transfer on August 4, 1958 with respect to each of the corresponding inheritance shares listed in the separate sheet among the land size of 0-40 forest land in Daejeon ○○-dong, Daejeon, Daejeon, Daejeon, the Republic of Korea completed the procedure for registration of ownership transfer on August 4, 1958 with respect to each of the relevant inheritance shares (the purport of the claim was confirmed at the trial of the Plaintiff 2, 30, Kim○-dong, Kim○-dong

2. Purport of appeal

No. 0: Revocation of the judgment of the first instance court. The plaintiff's claim for No. 1 is dismissed.

Korea: Revocation of judgment of the first instance court. The plaintiff's action against the Republic of Korea shall be dismissed.

1. Basic facts

가. 원고 오○순은 김○달(金振達, 주민등록번호 A)의 처, 나머지 원고들은 김○달의 각 자녀이며, 김○달은 1984. 2. 15. 사망하였고, 원고들은 상속지분은 별지 기재와 같다.

B. On August 5, 1958, Kim Jong-soo concluded a contract for the sale of real estate devolving (it is not a private contract due to an administrative disposition under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging) with the Defendant and the Republic of Korea on a bid price of 20,000 square meters for the amount of 20 square meters, which is the real estate devolving upon the Defendant’s Republic of Korea, and paid the purchase price in full until December 7, 1962.

C. On May 1, 1955, the above Daejeon ○○○ 200 square meters was restored in the cadastral record, and was divided into ○-1 or 0-10 of the same mountain, among which the two were divided from ○-7 on December 31, 1987 to 1-37 of the same mountain, the same ○-32 or 1-37, and ○-39 on March 24, 198, respectively, and on June 9, 198, the said ○ ○-7, Daejeon ○-dong, ○-40 forest 61 square meters (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”).

라. 1988. 3. 14. 존재하지 않는 허무인으로 망 김○달과 한자가 비슷한 김○원(金振遠, 주민등록번호 B) 명의의 인감증명서 및 세대별 주민등록표가 위조되었고(원고는 이를 피고 이○호가 위조하였거나 피고 이○호와 대전지방국세청 국유재산담당자인 이○정이 공모하였다고 위조하였다고 주장하고, 피고 이○호는 이를 위 이○정이 위조한 것이라고 주장한다), 1988. 3. 15. 위 김○원과 피고 이○호 사이에 '부동산의 표시 대전 ○구 ○동 산 ○-7에서 분할 산 ○-40(661㎡), 토지면적 200평, 대금총액 9,500,000원으로 된 매매계약서가 작성되었으며, 이에 근거하여 1988. 5.경 최초매수자 겸 양도인을 김○원(金振遠), 양수인을 피고 이○호로 하여, '대전 ○구 ○동 산 ○ 대 200평은 1958. 8. 4. 국가로부터 매수한 재산인바, 본인의 형편에 의거 1987. 12. 이○호에게 재산권리일체를 양도함이 상위없고, 후일 하등의 이의를 제기하지 않을 것을 확약한다'는 내용의 양도양수증이 작성되었다.

E. On May 31, 198, Defendant ○ filed an application for change of the purchaser’s name and an application for change of the parcel number of property devolving upon the purchaser with the director of the Daejeon Regional Tax Office for change of the purchaser’s name, and the application for change of the parcel number of property devolving upon the purchaser, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Defendant ○○-dong, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court No. 33364, Jul. 7, 198, as to the instant real property on the ground of sale on August 4, 1958.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6 through 11, Gap evidence 14, 15, Gap evidence 18 through 23, Gap evidence 29, 31, Gap evidence 32-10, 22, 23, and Eul evidence 33, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense prior to the merits

Defendant Republic of Korea: (a) sold land, which is the property devolving upon the State, to the purchaser under Article 22 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State; (b) if the purchaser completely pays the purchase price, the ownership of the real estate is not required to be automatically transferred to the purchaser; (c) thus, the ownership of the real estate was transferred by Kim ○○, the decedent of the Plaintiffs, in full payment of the purchase price for the real estate. Therefore, the Plaintiffs asserted that there is no benefit to seek the lawsuit of this case; (d) although the above Kim ○ did not complete the registration of ownership transfer, the sale price was acquired without completing the registration of ownership transfer, the seller is exempt from the obligation

3. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant Lee Ho-ho on the instant real estate is invalid because it lacks the cause, barring any special circumstance, Defendant Lee Dong-ho is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership as to the instant real estate under the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, No. 3364 on July 7, 198, received on July 7, 198, and Defendant Republic of Korea is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership as to each inheritance share on the instant real estate on August 4, 1958.

4. Determination on Defendant 0’s defense

A. Claim for the acquisition by prescription on the registry

(1) Defendant 00, Defendant 1, who was registered as the owner of the above real estate for more than 10 years after he commenced possession of the pertinent real estate without any negligence, and thus, the acquisition by prescription of the registry of the instant real estate was completed, and the transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant 00 is a valid registration consistent with the real relation.

(2) In the acquisition by prescription of the registry, the bona fide and without fault is not about registration, but about the acquisition by possession, and the burden of proof on the acquisition by prescription is on the side of claiming the acquisition by prescription. The acquisitor of the real estate must investigate whether the transferor of the real estate has the right to dispose of the real estate. If the transferor acquired the real estate without such investigation despite the fact that he could have known that the transferor had no right to dispose of the real estate, it may not be said that there was a negligence on the possession of the real estate (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da2665 delivered on August 22, 197).

(3) It is not sufficient to acknowledge that Defendant 1 had occupied the instant real estate without any negligence on the part of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was written by Nonparty 1 to 8 (including separate numbers), and that it was difficult to conclude a sales contract with Defendant 1 to identify that the instant real estate had been purchased without negligence on the part of 1 to 15, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the instant real estate was purchased by Defendant 1 to 7, which was written by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which was written on the 6th day of this case’s purchase and sale of the instant real estate, and on the 19th day of this case’s purchase and sale agreement with Defendant 1, which was written on the 9th day of this case’s 7th day.

B. Claim for extinctive prescription

Defendant ○ filed the lawsuit in this case at the time of September 15, 2006, when the time limit for the purchase price of the instant real estate on December 7, 1962, and the ten years thereafter passed thereafter, Defendant ○○ filed the lawsuit in this case. Although the Plaintiffs’ right to claim for ownership transfer registration expired by prescription, the instant real estate is a defense that the purchaser’s right to claim ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate is naturally transferred to the purchaser if the purchaser completely pays the purchase price in accordance with the Act on the Disposal of Property to Which he belongs, and the right to claim for ownership transfer registration of the Plaintiffs, the heir of the deceased Kim Il-O month, the full payment of the purchase price, is not subject to the extinctive prescription (Supreme Court Decision 2005Da58366, Mar. 23, 2006). The above assertion in this case

5. Conclusion

Thus, Defendant ○ is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on July 7, 1988 by the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court, the registration office of July 7, 1988, with respect to the real estate of this case, and the plaintiffs' claim of this case seeking its implementation is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the appeal of Defendant ○ is dismissed as it is without merit.

In addition, Defendant Republic of Korea has a duty to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the sale on August 4, 1958 with respect to each inheritance shares listed in the separate sheet among the real estate of this case to the plaintiffs, and thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the performance thereof is justified. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is ordered to perform the above duty according to the extension of the purport of the claim made in the trial at the trial court, and the decision of the court of first instance is just as the decision of the court of first instance was modified in accordance with the reduction of the purport of the claim made in the trial at the trial of the plaintiff Kim ○ and Kim ○, and as a result, the decision of the court of first instance with the same conclusion is just as the decision of the court of first instance, and the appeal of the defendant Republic of Korea