Suwon-si (Law Firm Jung-si, Attorneys Cho Jong-ok et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 1 (Defendant in the Supreme Court Decision) (Law Firm Asian, Attorney Kim Yong-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Defendant 2

June 30, 2010

Suwon District Court Decision 2009Gahap3190 Decided November 10, 2009

1. The plaintiff and defendant 1's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and Defendant 1 shall be borne by each party, and the costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2 shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Purport of claim

A. Main purport of claim: (i) With respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff, the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on June 29, 2006 by the Suwon District Court, the Suwon District Court, the Port Office, and the Shesheshesheet Defendant 2, on May 1, 1972, shall implement the procedure for registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation.

B. Preliminary claim: Defendant 1 confirms that there is no exclusive right to use and benefit from each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiff

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The same shall apply to the primary purport of the claim.

B. Defendant 1

The part against Defendant 1 in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is that the “this Court” in the last sentence of the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be the “UA District Court”, and the “Evidence A 10” in the 6th Sheet 2th Sheet 2 added “Evidence A 21 through 24,” and the “Evidence A 21 through 24” shall be deemed to be stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for addition of the judgment on Defendant 1’s argument in the trial following the 8th chip ar. As such, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with

【Additional Judgment】

In addition, Defendant 1's assertion that only within the scope of the burden of providing the land for the passage of the general public, Defendant 1's waiver or restriction of exclusive and exclusive rights to use the land of this case cannot be deemed to have given full waiver of exclusive rights to use and benefit from the land of this case. However, in light of the legal principles acknowledged earlier, the above "Waiver of exclusive rights to use and benefit from the land of this case" means that if the land owner provided the land without compensation for the passage of the general public, the ownership should not interfere with the passage of the general public. It does not mean that the third party should be allowed to illegally occupy and use the land for any purpose other than the passage of the general public. Thus, the above "Waiver of exclusive rights to use and benefit from the land of this case" is the same as "to provide the land without compensation for the passage of the general public." Thus, the above assertion by Defendant 1, which is premised on its interpretation and scope of application, cannot be viewed to have violated the above exclusive rights to use and benefit from the land of this case.

2. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the conjunctive claim is justified. The judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and all appeals filed by the plaintiff and defendant 1 are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Han-chul (Presiding Judge)