The case holding that a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of ownership transfer registration in the name of a person who acquired the above real estate from the person who claimed ownership transfer registration in the name of a person who acquired the above real estate on the premise that he/she is the true heir of the real estate in dispute, constitutes a lawsuit for inheritance recovery under the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199, Jan. 13, 1990).

The case holding that the plaintiffs' claim for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of Eul, Byung, etc., which was made on the ground of inheritance on the premise that they are the true successors of Gap's original owner of the real estate in dispute, constitutes a lawsuit for the recovery of inheritance under Article 999 of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199 of Jan. 13, 1990), since their claim that the ownership of the real estate in question belongs to the plaintiffs, is a lawsuit for the recovery of inheritance under Article 999 of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199 of Jan. 13, 1990).

Article 999 of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199 of Jan. 13, 1990) (Article 982)

Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Meu19470 Decided January 17, 1989 (Gong1989, 288) (Gong1991, 1060) Decided February 22, 1991, Decision 90Da5740 Decided December 24, 1991 (Gong192, 635)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and two others

Gwangju District Court Decision 91Na533 delivered on May 8, 1992

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs' grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court determined that, after the lapse of October 17, 1959, Defendant 1’s lawsuit was filed on May 31, 197 with respect to the instant real estate owned by the deceased non-party 1, and that the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Defendant 1 on the ground of the inheritance on October 17, 1959, and that the inheritance was completed on the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1 and the two children, who were the deceased non-party 2, and the deceased non-party 1, and the deceased non-party 3, who were the deceased non-party 9, were born on the family registry register that the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 4, who were the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 1, who were the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 1, who were the deceased non-party 9’s inheritance net and the deceased non-party 16.

In light of relevant evidence and records, and the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da5740 delivered on December 24, 191, 191). The judgment below did not properly examine like the theory of lawsuit or did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the lawsuit for recovery of inheritance. Thus, there is no reason to discuss.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)