Whether only the right to claim for registration of ownership transfer is subject to extinctive prescription;

It shall not be subject to extinctive prescription, regardless of ownership, only the right to claim for ownership transfer registration.

Article 167 of the former Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and three others

The part against the plaintiff in the original judgment shall be revoked.

Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 against the Plaintiff, Defendant 1, 2, 3, and 4 will implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership due to the sale made on January 18, 4278, for each of the five-minutes of forest land 1, forest land 394, forest land 394, forest land 5, and Dong 2, forest land 394, forest land 8, forest land 150, and forest land 4.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant, etc. in the first instance (excluding the defendant non-party 1) and the second instance.

The defendant 1, 2, 3 et al. sought a judgment on the place of the order, and the defendant 4 requested a judgment on the dismissal of the public prosecution, and the defendant 4 did not appear at the date of the oral pleading and submit other answers and preparatory documents despite the fact that the defendant 4 was able to do so on the date of the oral pleading.

On the other hand, the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 2 were transferred to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, the non-party 3 and the deceased non-party 4 were transferred to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 and the non-party 2 were transferred to the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 and the deceased non-party 4 were transferred to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 for the short-term period of 7 years on December 5, 275 with the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were transferred to the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 were transferred to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were transferred to the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 were transferred to the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were transferred to the non-party 4 and the non-party 2 were entitled to acquire the ownership of the right after the expiration of the lease period of the non-party 27.

As Defendant 1, 2, and 3, Defendant 1 (the part related to Defendant 4 is based on oral arguments made by the lower court on the part of the Plaintiff) was the answer of the Plaintiff 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4, the heir of the Plaintiff’s head, and Defendant 1, Defendant 2, 3, and 4, etc. were leased to the Plaintiff on a short-term basis on October 12, 4283, and the fact that the ownership of the forest was transferred to the Plaintiff on a short-term basis by the Defendant 1, Nonparty 2, and Defendant 4, etc. (the title of the Plaintiff’s ownership was transferred to the Plaintiff on a short-term basis, excluding the title of the Defendant 1, Nonparty 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 3, and Defendant 4, etc., the title of the Plaintiff’s ownership was transferred to the Plaintiff on a short-term basis on the ground that the transfer of the ownership of the forest by the Defendant 1, Nonparty 2, and Defendant 1, etc., were transferred on a short-term.).

As evidence, the plaintiff's representative shall submit evidence 1 to 10 and evidence 11 to 15-1, 2 and evidence 16-1 to 32 of the above evidence 11, 12, 8, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 of the court below's testimony, and shall use the testimony of the non-party 20, 10, 200, 200, 13 and 14 of the above evidence 1 to 15 of the above evidence 2, 1, 2-1, 2-12 of the above evidence 1 to 2-1 of the above evidence 2, 2-1 of the above evidence 2 of the court below's evidence 1 to 3-1 of the above evidence 2 of the above evidence 2 of the above evidence 1 to 3-1 of the above evidence 2 of the above evidence 2 of the above evidence 1 to 213, 21 of the evidence

Defendant 2, 3, and 4, etc. are the deceased of the plaintiff 2's heir, etc., and around 4267, Defendant 1, 1 (a confirmed defendant 2), and Defendant 2, 3, and 4's transfer of forest land owned by the government, and the fact that the defendant, etc. was granted forest land from the government on October 12, 4282 for a short term. Thus, there is no dispute between the parties, the above-mentioned defendant 1, 2, and 3 were paid for the above-mentioned defendant 1, 4, and the above-mentioned defendant 2's transfer of forest land to the plaintiff 11, 12, 8, 14, 18, 18, and 20 on condition that the above-mentioned defendant 2's transfer of forest land will not be recognized as the above-mentioned defendant 1 and the above-mentioned defendant 2's transfer of forest land to the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 20 on condition that the above-mentioned defendant 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 25.

The defendant, as a defense, is in violation of the mandatory law, so the contract of this case is null and void, but it is not the purpose of prohibiting the sale under the condition that the permission of transfer should be obtained, and the defense of this case shall be rejected without any reason.

Then, although this contract is deemed null and void as the most trade, this defense is dismissed as there is no evidence other than the testimony of Non-party 22, 21, 23 and non-party 22, non-party 21, 23 who did not agree with the party members;

In the following case, since the ownership of forest land belongs to the plaintiff, the right to claim the transfer of ownership is not independent of the right to claim the transfer of ownership, and this defense is without merit, it is not dismissed.

If it is true that the defendant et al. transferred the forest of this case from the State on October 12, 4282 to the State on the short-term 4282, there is no dispute between the parties, so the defendant 1, 2, and 3, et al. are obliged to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration due to the sale and purchase contract dated January 18, 4276 for each portion of the forest of this case.

Next, as to the claim against the defendant 4, the plaintiff entered into a mutual compromise on March 16, 289 with the defendant, and the defendant received gold 200,000 from the plaintiff, and at the same time, the defendant agreed to implement the registration procedure for transfer of the shares in the forest land ownership of the defendant, and the plaintiff agreed to complete the registration procedure for transfer by May 18, 200, and made a full payment by the plaintiff until May 18, 200, in consideration of the witness's testimony in the items of subparagraphs 17 and 32, which can be recognized by the non-party 1's testimony, the plaintiff's letter of friendship can be recognized. Thus, the defendant is obligated to perform the registration procedure for transfer of one fifth of the shares in the forest land owned by the defendant under the same settlement contract to the plaintiff.

Since the plaintiff's main claim is reasonable and acceptable, the original judgment is revoked and the cost of lawsuit (excluding the defendant non-party 1) is assessed against the order by applying Articles 96 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Yu Jae-gu (Presiding Judge)