Whether or not there exists the right to inheritance of the mother's property, the only surviving spouse whose name is entered in the family register due to the intelligence of the deceased's father, in the case of his unmarried deceased in the custom before the enforcement of the Civil Act.

In a case where the family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head’s family head

Articles 867 and 100 of the Civil Act

6. Judgment of the Joseon High Court (Supreme Court Decision 136Nu33 delivered on June 16, 1925)

Jeongi et al. and six others

Defendant 1 and one other

Gwangju District Court (82 Ghana717)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

Defendant 1, on May 23, 1969, completed on May 23, 1969 by the Gwangju District Court (the receipt number omitted), Defendant 2, on the above site, followed each procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on April 22, 1971 by the same court (the receipt number omitted).

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in the first and second instances.

The same shall apply to the order.

The land was originally divided into 197 square meters from the deceased non-party 1, the Dong-dong 25 square meters (hereinafter this case's lot number omitted), Gwangju-si (hereinafter referred to as "non-party 1") and the registration of ownership transfer made on September 15, 1960 by the deceased non-party 1, and the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made on March 31, 197, and that the registration of ownership transfer was made on March 31, 197, and it was not disputed between the parties, and that the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 3, the deceased non-party 5, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 9, the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 2, the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 1, the deceased party 2, the deceased non-party 4.

According to the above facts, the site of this case owned by the deceased non-party 1 was inherited solely to the deceased non-party 4, who is his lineal descendant due to the death of the Dong, and according to the custom prior to the enforcement of the Civil Code, intelligence is a family member, and even if the deceased non-party 4 was born, no property inheritance right exists. Thus, the site of this case was inherited to the deceased non-party 5, who is the only male required for the deceased non-party 4's death, and the deceased non-party 5's death again is inherited to the plaintiffs ( contrary to this opinion, even if the site of this case was succeeded to the deceased non-party 3, who was not alive at the time of the death of Dong non-party 5, the site of this case is custom prior to the enforcement of the Civil Code, and the registration of ownership transfer of the deceased non-party 2, who was the deceased non-party 5, was transferred to the deceased non-party 5, the deceased non-party 5, who was the deceased non-party 5.

The Defendants asserted that the instant site was owned by the deceased non-party 5's deceased non-party 6 who was the deceased non-party 5's high tide group, and was in contact with the deceased non-party 6 and the mountain where the deceased non-party 1 was installed. However, on February 15, 1969, the trust was placed in the name of the deceased non-party 1, and the right to manage and dispose of the property of the deceased non-party 1 and his heir was delegated to the defendant 1 by a resolution of the above letter of apology. Thus, even if the above registration of the above defendant's name was not made through lawful procedures, it is still valid in line with the substantive legal relationship. Thus, even if the above registration of the defendant's name was not made by the above legitimate procedure, the entries of No. 2 Eul evidence in conformity with the defendants' defense and the highest witness of the original judgment, each of the testimony of the plaintiff non-party 1 and the defendant non-party 2's testimony of the deceased non-party 1 and the defendant 2's testimony were not legitimate.

Therefore, the above transfer registration under Defendant 1 and the above transfer registration under Defendant 2, which had been completed on this basis, are all null and void. Accordingly, the defendants are obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation registration under each of the above registrations to the plaintiffs who are the owners of the land in this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' claim in this case seeking its implementation is justified. Since the original judgment is unfair, the original judgment is unfair. Thus, the original judgment is to be revoked by accepting the plaintiffs' appeal, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants who have lost all of the first and second instances.

Judges Kim Jong-he (Presiding Judge)