Whether to accept the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration.

In the case of a specific testamentary gift, only the person who succeeds to the testamentary gift shall have the right to claim the performance of testamentary gift against the person who succeeds to the testamentary gift property on the premise that he/she is the owner of the testamentary gift, and the right to claim the performance of testamentary gift shall not be the right to claim the cancellation of the registration of ownership, and

Article 55 (Contract of Gift not in Writing and its Rescission)

1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The primary purport of the claim is to the plaintiff, and the defendant 00 implements the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of recovery of 000 persons with respect to 722/1382 of the real estate stated in the separate sheet, and the defendant 00, 000, 000, and 00 shall implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of recovery of real name with respect to 2/13 shares in the separate sheet as stated in the separate sheet.

Preliminary Claim: On April 19, 2002, which was completed as of April 19, 200 by the 00 district court 000 registry office 18790 on April 19, 2002 as to 722/1382 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant 00 performed the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration on April 19, 2002, and Defendant 00,000,000 as to 2/13 of each of the shares on real estate listed in the separate sheet 2.11, 200 registry office 00,000, and completed as of October 11, 2003 as of October 23, 2003, the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration on April 23, 2003, the Incheon Metropolitan City, Dong-gu, Korea, and Jung-gu Incheon Metropolitan City shall accept the cancellation of ownership transfer registration of Defendant 00.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, Defendant 00, 000, 000, and 000 are South-North Koreans, and 000 died on April 23, 2003.

B. As to the 1. Real Estate listed in the Attachment List (hereinafter “instant 1. Real Estate”), a gift contract was prepared with the content that 000% was donated to Defendant 00 as of April 19, 2002.

C. Since then, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 29, 2002 as of April 19, 2002 with respect to the real estate 1. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the future of Defendant 000.

D. Meanwhile, on May 30, 200, a notary public made 1328 of the 200 General Law Office No. 1328 of May 30, 2002, 134-3 of Incheon Jung-gu and 890 square meters as well as 2. Real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 of the 2. Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as the “real estate of this case”). The 00 Dong-dong 134-4 of Incheon Jung-gu and 137 square meters as to the Plaintiff’s share of 00 Dong-dong 506-1, 40.2 square meters, 506-5 and 40.4 square meters as to the above 00 Dong-dong 1,000, as to the real estate of this case, the portion of the real estate of this case was written as 30/200 of the Plaintiff’s share of 1.3 square meters as if it were donated to Defendant 200, respectively.

F. As to the above 00 shares, the registration of seizure was completed on December 4, 2004, with the right holder of the defendant Incheon Metropolitan City as of February 9, 2006, with the defendant Republic of Korea as the right holder, the defendant Republic of Korea as of February 9, 2006, and the defendant Incheon Metropolitan City as the right holder on March 13, 2006, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 4, Gap evidence 7-2, the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the plaintiff's primary claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that, from 000, a notary public, through No. 1328 of the 00 General Law Office’s certificate, 722 square meters among the real estate of this case and the real estate of this case 2.2, the Plaintiff, who was her mother, sought a judgment, such as the entries in the primary claim, in order to recover the ownership of the real estate acquired by universal legacy.

B. Determination

The plaintiff's primary claim is based on the premise that the plaintiff was subject to a universal legacy from 000, so it should be the premise that the legacy against the plaintiff of 000 constitutes a universal legacy.

In the above notarial deed, the purport of 00 to donate the real estate of this case to the Plaintiff, and as to the real estate of this case 1. The registration was completed as if the gift was made in spite of only 200 square meters to Defendant 00. As such, the part exceeding 200 square meters was stated in the purport of recommending the Plaintiff to return to the Plaintiff. In addition, the part exceeding 200 square meters was stated in the purport of recommending that it should be returned to the Plaintiff, and there was no evidence to acknowledge the Defendants’ assertion that the above 134-3 square meters of the Incheon Jung-gu, 00, 134-4, 890 square meters of the Jung-gu, Incheon, 134-4, 00, 506-1, 40.2 square meters of the Dong-gu, Incheon, 00, 506-5, 40.4 square meters of the above notarial deed, but there was no evidence to acknowledge the Defendants’ assertion that the above 1 to 300 evidence and 40.

"However, the following circumstances, i.e., in the case of a universal legacy, (i) the content of the disposal of the obligation in addition to the active property in the testamentary gift; and (ii) the fact that there is an obligation in 000 to 000 is no dispute between the parties; (iii) the content of the notarial deed does not indicate any matters concerning the disposal of the obligation; and (iv) there is no entry in the purport that it is a general testamentary gift in any place in the notarial deed; and (iii) the content of the notarial deed is not a specific testamentary gift, but a specific testamentary gift is not a universal testamentary gift, so the instant testamentary gift is deemed to be a specific testamentary gift, and therefore, the plaintiff's primary argument is without merit."

A. The assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that, even though a notary public, from 000 to 1328, received a testamentary gift on real estate of 1. real estate of this case and 722m2 and 2. real estate of this case, Defendant 1, to 4.00 did not intend to complete the registration of ownership transfer under the said Defendants’ name, and that the registration of ownership transfer should be revoked in entirety against the intent of 000, and that Defendant 5 to 7 should express his/her consent on the registration of ownership cancellation.

B. Determination

(1) 722m2 of the instant 1. Real Estate

As seen earlier, with respect to the size of 722 square meters among the real estate 1. of this case, as of April 19, 2002, the fact that the donation was made to Defendant 000 and the gift was made. The testimony in this document is prohibited from being cancelled in order to prevent a dispute by preventing the donor’s intention from being unfairly donated under the Civil Act (Article 55 of the Civil Act). The Civil Act provides that it does not affect the part already performed due to ownership transfer, etc. (Article 558 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, unless there are special circumstances such as the invalidity of the cause of ownership transfer registration in the future of Defendant 00, the Plaintiff cannot seek the ownership transfer registration for the portion of the gift and the part already completed the implementation of the period prior to the legacy (Article 558 of the Civil Act).

(2) The part on the 2. Real Estate

From 000 to the Plaintiff, the legacy against the Plaintiff 2. Real Estate portion constitutes a specific legacy as seen earlier.

In such a case of a testamentary gift, only the person who succeeds to the testamentary gift has the right to claim the testamentary gift performance against the person who succeeds to the testamentary gift property on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner of the testamentary gift, and may not claim the cancellation of the registration in his name against the person who succeeds to the testamentary gift on the premise that the plaintiff is the owner of the testamentary gift (the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer based on the right to claim the testamentary gift performance in the final purport of the claim of April 11, 2008 and the application for change of the cause of the claim, but the right to claim the testamentary gift performance cannot be claimed based on

Therefore, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of shares in Defendant 1. through 4 on the part of the instant 2. Real Estate and the claim for the declaration of consent against Defendant 5. through 7 on the premise of this part cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion on this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

For this reason, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims against the defendants are all dismissed.