The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Changwon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning after comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and determined that the deceased Party’s inheritance of each of the instant land from Cho F and father G, and that it can be deemed that the deceased J trusted the trust of one-fourth of the shares out of each of the instant land.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the presumption of title trust and registration, without exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, the lower court acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the adopted evidence, and determined that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the deceased J with respect to the portion of 1/4 of each of the instant lands executed pursuant to the title trust agreement should be cancelled as the cause invalidation after July 1, 1996 when the grace period under Articles 4, 11, and 12 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name has expired. Thus, the Defendants, the deceased J’s heir, are obliged to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership against the Plaintiffs, the deceased’s heir.

Furthermore, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ defense of extinctive prescription, based on its stated reasoning, that the period of extinctive prescription for the right to claim the cancellation registration of ownership transfer against the Defendants by the network A has expired.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, and did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine

3. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, in calculating the Defendants’ shares in inheritance, the lower court.