[Judgment of the court below]

Woo C&C Co., Ltd. and one other (Attorneys Chang Chang-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

July 6, 2017

Suwon District Court Decision 2014Gahap20834 decided May 26, 2016

1. On the part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant Bohovahovahovahovah and the defendant 2 (Counter-board: the defendant), the part of the judgment against the plaintiff falling under the part of the order to implement the above paragraph b shall be revoked.

For the plaintiff and the non-party listed in Appendix 3:

A. Of the land listed in paragraph 2 of the “Indication of Real Estate” attached Form 1, the Defendant Bohovah Crhovah Korea Association:

B. Defendant 2:

1) Of the land listed in paragraph 4 of “the indication of real estate” attached Form 1, the part (c) in the ship connecting each point of which is indicated in the attached Form 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 31, 30, 29, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, and 3 in sequence;

2) Of the land listed in attached Form 1, Paragraph 5, “the indication of real estate”

With respect to each relevant share listed in the attached Table 3, the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of each authentic title shall be implemented.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal against the defendant 2 is dismissed.

3. Of the total costs of litigation, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Bohovahovahovah Korea Association is to be borne by Defendant Boh Korea-U. S. C., 30% of the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 2, and the remainder by Defendant 2, respectively.

1. Purport of claim

The judgment of the court below No. 1-A and the non-party listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as "land No. 3", and the remaining land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 are specified in the separate sheet No. 3) shall carry out the procedure for ownership transfer registration for each of the relevant shares listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (the plaintiff at the court of first instance requested the defendants to carry out the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the restoration of real name as to the land No. 2 and No. 5 in the separate sheet No. 3, and the plaintiff filed a preliminary claim for the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration for each of the above lands, and subsequently, the plaintiff withdrawn the preliminary claim at the court of first instance and maintained only the main claim against the defendant No. 2, and revised the claim No. 4 in the separate sheet No. 1).

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The same judgment as the above purport of the claim is sought (the purport of the appeal was also modified or reduced within the scope of the appeal by modifying the purport of the claim and partially reducing the purport of the appeal as mentioned above in the judgment of the first instance).

1. Basic facts

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: (a) the part of “1. Basic Facts” from 3rd to 5th 20th 20th 20 of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same; and (b) such part is cited in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

○○ The Co-Defendant 6, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 8, Nonparty 9, Nonparty 10, Nonparty 11, Nonparty 12, Nonparty 13, Nonparty 14, Nonparty 15, Nonparty 16, Nonparty 17, Nonparty 18, Nonparty 19, Nonparty 20, Nonparty 21, Nonparty 22, Nonparty 23, and Nonparty 24 in the first instance trial, respectively, and Nonparty 6, Nonparty 7, Nonparty 8, Nonparty 9, Nonparty 10, Nonparty 11, Nonparty 12, Nonparty 13, Nonparty 14, Nonparty 15, Nonparty 16, Nonparty 17, Nonparty 18, Nonparty 19, Nonparty 20, Nonparty 21, Nonparty 22, Nonparty 23, and Nonparty 24.

○ The following shall be added between conduct 11 and 12 on the third side:

“○○○, the assessment title of each of the above lands, shall be the same person as the Plaintiff’s prior Nonparty 1 and week 2).”

○ Up to 10 parallels 5 to 10 shall be done in the following manner:

6) △△△△△-gun, △△-gun (number 1 omitted), 174 square meters (575 square meters) [Attachment 2] 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 30, 29, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 28, and 3; hereinafter the same shall apply to the portion of 4.3 square meters on the ship connected each of the points of 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 30, 29, 25 square meters in the name of 16.3 square meters in the name of △△△△△-gun, 167 square meters in the name of 16.5 square meters in the name of △△△△-gun, 202, and 16.3 square meters in the name of 25.4.

○ 5 pages 18 of the 5th page “each description” added “the result of the survey and appraisal by Nonparty 25 of the trial appraiser.”

2. Judgment on the claim against the defendant clan (the second land part of this case)

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

1) Relevant legal principles

Where the holder of a registration of initial ownership is presumed to be the owner but it is proved that there is another person in charge of the assessment of the relevant land, the presumption power is broken, so the registration shall be deemed to be null and void, unless the holder of the registration asserts and proves the acquisition by succession specifically (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da23524, Apr. 28, 1995; 2002Da43417, May 26, 2005).

Meanwhile, although ownership transfer registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Real Estate Ownership is presumed to be a registration that conforms to the substantive legal relationship, the registration of ownership transfer is based on the succession of ownership from the former registered titleholder, and guarantee or confirmation of the fact of succession. Therefore, if the former registered titleholder is an unentitled person, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name should be cancelled as the invalidation of the cause, the presumption power of registration is reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da44171, Sept. 12, 2013, etc.).

2) Determination

In light of the above legal principles, the facts that Non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's fleet, was in the assessment of the land No. 2 of this case are identical to the facts based on the above facts. As such, there is no evidence to prove that Non-party 26 and non-party 6, who is the title holder of the registration of ownership transfer, were in possession of the land No. 2 of this case, and that Non-party 26 and non-party 26 succeeded to the land No. 2 of this case from the deceased non-party 1 and their successors. Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer of Non-party 26 and non-party 28 of this case concerning the land No. 2 of this case, based on the invalid registration of ownership transfer, should also be cancelled as the registration of the invalidation of the cause. The registration of invalidation of this cause should also be cancelled as the registration of ownership transfer of the defendant clan's name, and the defendant clan is liable for the registration of ownership transfer to the plaintiff and non-party 3 and non-party 4 and non-party 5 of this case.

B. Determination as to the defense of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition by Defendant Bohovahovahovah's Republic of Korea

(1) Defenses to complete the prescription period for possession

A) The defenses of the defendant Shovah Shovahovah's Cr.

In regard to this, the defendant clan, which is the non-party 27, the non-party 28, and the non-party 29 who agreed on the transfer of the ownership of the land of this case with the non-party 27, the non-party 28, and the non-party 29, possession of the land of this case and possession of the land of this case for 20 years from April 1, 1980 and the prescription period for possession was completed on or around April 1, 200, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant clan is a valid registration in accordance with the substantive relationship.

B) Determination

It is insufficient to recognize that the defendant clan occupied the land No. 2 from April 1, 1980 to the extent that the statement of No. 5-2 and the evidence submitted by the defendant clan alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant clan occupied the land No. 2, and there is no other evidence to recognize otherwise. Therefore, the defendant clan's defense is without merit.

2) Defenses to complete the period of prescription acquired on the registry

A) Defendant clan defense

In other words, since from December 5, 1994 when the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land No. 2 of this case was completed, the defendant clan has occupied the above land in good faith and without negligence in a public performance with intent to own the above land, and therefore, the defendant clan acquired the ownership of the land No. 2 of this case as the acquisition by prescription at the expiration of 10 years thereafter, and the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the above land No. 2 of the defendant clan is valid.

B) Determination

(1) The presumption of ownership transfer registration completed in the name of the defendant clan 200 and the former registered titleholder is to be cancelled as a cause invalidation because the former registered titleholder is an unentitled person. It is also examined above. Even if the above opinion is different, registration completed in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 4502 of Nov. 30, 1992, hereinafter "Special Measures Act") shall be presumed to be consistent with the substantive legal relationship. The presumption of ownership transfer registration or certificate under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Real Estate is not reversed unless it is proved that the former registered titleholder is false or forged, or that the former registered titleholder is not legitimate due to other reasons. This false letter of guarantee or certificate of registration is 200,000,000, 30,000,000, 30,000,000, 2,000, 3,000, 3,000, 2,00.

In addition, the acquisition by prescription of the registry does not relate to registration, but to the acquisition by possession, and the burden of proof on the acquisition by prescription is on the side of claiming the acquisition by prescription, and the person who acquired the real estate must investigate whether the transferor has the right to dispose of the real estate, and if the transferor acquired the real estate without such investigation despite the fact that he could have known that the transferor had no right to dispose of the real estate if he had investigated it, it cannot be said that there was a negligence on the possession of the real estate (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da2665 delivered on August 22, 197, etc.). In the case of the same person as the titleholder on the registry, the seller cannot be said to have a negligence on the part of the purchaser who believed that the entry on the registry is valid. However, if there are circumstances to suspect the seller's right due to the entry on the registry or other circumstances, the seller's trust and purchase the registration under the name of the seller, and it cannot be said that there was no negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da2654 delivered on Nov. 125, 12004, 2004).

(2) In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the records as to this case, Gap evidence No. 5-2, and the fact-finding conducted on September 4, 2015 by the court of first instance, the defendant clan completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land No. 2 for the reason of sale on April 1, 1980 pursuant to the Act on Special Measures (Act No. 4502) on December 5, 1994, and at the time the defendant clan issued a guarantee certificate (hereinafter "the guarantee certificate of this case"), and the defendant clan submitted the above guarantee certificate from non-party No. 30, non-party No. 31, and non-party No. 32 on April 1, 1980, it can be recognized that the defendant clan actually purchased and actually owned it from non-party No. 27, non-party No. 28, and non-party No. 29 on September 1, 1980.

Unlike the contents of the letter of guarantee of this case, the defendant clan entered into a donation contract with the non-party 27, non-party 28, and non-party 29, who is the transferor of the second land of this case, to donate the above land to the defendant clan on several occasions from April 17, 1931 until the death of the above land, but the non-party 27 and non-party 29 were dead during the delay in the execution of the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant clan, and thereafter the defendant clan entered the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of the Law of December 5, 1994 for the convenience of the procedure. In light of the above legal principles, the presumption of registration cannot be reversed merely because the above circumstance is insufficient.

However, considering the aforementioned evidence and evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 9, 19, Eul's evidence Nos. 1, 3, 5, and 9 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the fact-finding with respect to the head of △△ Crops in the court of first instance, the first instance court's fact-finding with respect to the head of △△ Group of the △△ Group, and the following circumstances acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole, the fact-finding of the first instance court's first instance court's fact-finding as of May 8, 2015, and December 20, 2016, it is reasonable to deem that the guarantee in this case is proved to have been proven to have been proven to have been suspected to have not been true, and since the fact-finding for the defendant clan newly asserted by the defendant was proved to have the presumption of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant with respect to the land

① From November 17, 2002 to April 2014, Defendant Heavy paid the property tax, etc. on the instant land No. 2. From around 1995 to 2014, there were activity details, such as leasing the instant land No. 2 to △△ Agricultural Group. Around April 9, 2012, Defendant Non-Party No. 27, Non-Party No. 28, and Non-Party No. 29 were registered as a non-profit corporation under the name of Non-Party No. 27, Non-Party No. 28, and Non-Party No. 29, and Non-Party No. 1990, Non-Party No. 27, Non-Party No. 29, Non-Party No. 29, Non-Party No. 29, Non-Party No.

② Nonparty 27, Nonparty 28, and Nonparty 29 were residing in Yellow Seado as of April 17, 1931. However, it is difficult to readily understand that purchasing the instant land located in Ansan-si and donated the instant land to the Defendant among the Defendant, and there is no evidence to deem that Defendant clan occupied the instant land No. 2 by using it as the soil.

③ In the first instance court, the Defendant alleged that he purchased the instant land No. 2 from the above transferor, and the first instance court changed his assertion to the effect that the said land was donated only through the preparatory brief dated December 5, 2016.

④ Considering that the land survey division with respect to 1,190 square meters prior to the division of the land No. 2 in Suwon-gun, Suwon-gun, △△△△, which is the land before the division of the instant land, was entered in the land survey division on 1,190 square meters prior to the completion of the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant clan, Nonparty 6, the representative of the Defendant clan, at the time of completing the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant clan, was the grandchildren of Nonparty 27, one of the transferor of the instant land No. 2, and Nonparty 27 was related to Nonparty 26 and six, who is the registration titleholder of the ownership transfer, and, at the time when the instant land No. 2 was located, Ansan-gu, Busan-si, where the instant land was located, was considered to be the collective village of the Defendant clan, Nonparty 6 cannot be sufficiently ruled out the possibility that there was no right to dispose of the instant land No. 2 by Nonparty 2, including Nonparty 26 and Nonparty 27.

⑤ Nonparty 27, Nonparty 28, Nonparty 27, and Nonparty 29, who is the transferor of the instant second land, had already died on May 2, 1943 and October 18, 1969, respectively, on the day earlier than April 1, 1980, which was the date of sale indicated in the instant guarantee certificate, as seen in the facts based on the above facts. There is no evidence to confirm the existence or inheritance of Nonparty 28, and there is no evidence to confirm the existence or inheritance of the Defendant clan on April 1, 1980, which is the date of sale indicated in the instant guarantee certificate. The said guarantee certificate is written by Nonparty 27 and Nonparty 29, one of the transferor, as the name of Nonparty 28, the transferor, on April 1, 1980, which is the date of sale, and it is sufficient to doubt that the above guarantee is true because it is not clear that the name of Nonparty 28, who is the transferor, was mistakenly recorded.

(3) As above, the presumption of ownership transfer registration for the land No. 2 of the defendant clan was reversed, and as to the assertion of the defendant clan that the defendant clan donated the land No. 2 of this case from the transferor, Eul's each statement of No. 15-1 through No. 3 is prepared by the members of the defendant clan, and it is difficult to recognize that Eul donated the land No. 14 and No. 16 to the defendant clan before the birth, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the above transferor donated the land No. 2 of this case to the defendant clan, on this premise, there is no reason to believe that the above transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant clan conforms to the substantive legal relationship.

(4) Furthermore, if the registration of ownership transfer under the Act on Special Measures is completed by a false certificate of guarantee and a written confirmation, the possession of the registrant of the registration of the real estate shall be deemed to be by negligence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da28966, Nov. 9, 193; 95Da50578, Apr. 9, 1996; 95Da50578, Apr. 9, 1996). As seen above, there is no evidence to prove that the registration of the land of this case No. 2 of the defendant clan was reversed, and there is no other evidence to prove that there was no negligence in the possession of the land of this case No. 2 of the defendant clan. Rather, in light of the above circumstances, since there was a negligence in the possession of the land of this case by the defendant clan as to the land of this case. Accordingly, the defendant's defense that the acquisition by prescription of the registration was completed is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Ultimately, Defendant clan is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the recovery of real names according to each inheritance share (Plaintiff 3/9 shares, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 5 2/9 shares) listed in the separate sheet No. 3 on the land of this case to the Plaintiff, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 5.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant 2

A. Part on the third land of this case

1) Plaintiff’s ground for claim

이 사건 제3토지에 관한 농지분배 및 상환에 관련된 농지소표나 상환대장은 현출되지 않았고, 분배농지법 시행규칙 제3조 주4) 에 의한 증서로 보이는 상환증서(을마 제4호증)와 제1심 법원의 국가기록원 서울기록관장에 대한 사실조회 결과 회신된 상환대장부표(갑 제22호증)만이 현출되어 있는데, ㉠ 위 상환증서 상 지번 (지번 5 생략) 토지의 면적 기재가 상환대장부표 기재 면적과 다른 점, ㉡ 위 상환증서 중 분배농지표시에 소유자의 주소 및 성명이 누락되어 있고, 상환대장부표에는 이 사건 제3토지의 전 소유자가 소외 33으로 되어 있는 점, ㉢ 위 상환증서 상 소외 2가 약정한 상환기간(1953. 3. 25. ~ 1954. 12. 31.)이 지난 후에 상환을 완료한 것으로 기재되어 있는 점, ㉣ 위 상환증서에 5년간 균등납부로 약정이 되어있음에도 불구하고 영수란에 기재된 총상환액과 1년 상환액이 같은 점 등에 비추어 보면 위 상환증서는 진정하게 작성된 것이 아니라 할 것이므로, 피고 2가 1964. 9. 21. 제3토지에 관하여 분배농지법에 따라 1957. 12. 30. 상환완료를 원인으로 마친 소유권이전등기는 원인무효의 등기로서 말소되어야 주5) 한다.

2) Determination

A) If the registration of transfer of ownership based on the completion of repayment for a parcel of land has been completed, it shall be presumed that the procedure for distribution of farmland has been lawful (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da37326, Nov. 25, 197, etc.). If the Government directly completed the registration of transfer pursuant to the Distribution Farmland Act, the above registration shall be presumed to have been completed according to the legitimate procedure prescribed in the above Act. Thus, in order for the Plaintiff to seek cancellation of this registration, it shall be proved that the registration was not lawfully made pursuant to the above Act because the certificate or certification was false or forged or forged (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da741, Sept. 13, 197, etc.).

Meanwhile, since the repayment ledger is a document prepared in order to record matters necessary for repayment after the completion of the procedure for confirmation of distribution farmland, if certain land is entered in the repayment ledger as farmland subject to distribution, it can be presumed that the procedure for confirmation of distribution farmland was lawfully completed for such land. The repayment ledger is a document about the distribution of farmland, which is equivalent to or important evidence of farmland, and thus, it cannot be readily rejected (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da4120, Jan. 14, 1994; 94Da27649, Sept. 15, 195; 94Da27649, Sept. 15, 1995; 200, the document itself is a document in which the change is entered in the repayment ledger, and it does not be readily rejected unless there are special circumstances (see Supreme Court Decision 88Da18702, Oct. 13, 1989, etc.).

B) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances revealed in light of the health team, Gap evidence Nos. 22 and Eul evidence Nos. 4, the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on Sep. 21, 1964, the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on the Seoul Record repository, the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on the third land of this case, namely, the ownership transfer registration under the defendant's name is presumed to have been completed on Dec. 30, 1957, and the third land of this case is written as the farmland subject to distribution in the repayment ledger. The third land of this case is written as the farmland subject to distribution. The above distribution confirmation procedure was presumed to have been lawful, and the non-party No. 2 completed the registration of ownership transfer on Sep. 21, 1964 for the above land due to the fact-finding by the court of first instance on Sep. 21, 196.

나아가 위 소유권이전등기의 추정력이 번복되는지 여부에 관하여 살피건대, 앞서 본 기초 사실과 앞서 든 각 증거 및 갑 제22호증, 을마 제4호증의 각 기재, 제1심 법원의 국가기록원 서울기록관장에 대한 사실조회 결과에 변론 전체의 취지를 종합하여 알 수 있는 다음과 같은 사정들, 즉 ㉠ 위 상환증서 기재 분배농지 중 ‘□□□리 (지번 5 생략)’의 면적 기재는 상환대장부표 기재 면적과 동일한 점, ㉡ 위 상환증서 중 분배농지표시에 소유자의 주소 및 성명이 누락되어 있다거나, 상환완료일 및 상환액 기재에 오기가 있다는 사정들만으로 위 상환증서가 위조된 것이라고 쉽게 단정할 수는 없는 점, ㉢ 위 상환대장에는 이 사건 제3토지가 ‘△△면 □□□리 (지번 6 생략) 전 194평’으로 기재되어 있고, 이는 이 사건 제3토지에 관한 위 상환증서의 분배농지표시 부분의 기재 지번 및 지적과 일치하는 점, ㉣ 이 사건 제3토지에 관한 농지분배 및 상환에 관련된 농지소표나 상환대장이 기록상 현출되어 있지 않다는 원고의 주장과 달리, 제1심 법원의 국가기록원 서울기록관장에 대한 사실조회 결과에는 이 사건 제3토지에 관한 상환대장이 포함되어 있는 점 등에 비추어 보면, 갑 제22호증, 을마 제4호증의 각 일부 기재만으로는 위 상환증서 등이 허위 내지는 위조되었다거나 피고 2 명의의 위 소유권이전등기가 적법하게 등기된 것이 아니라고 인정하기에 부족하고, 달리 이를 인정할 증거가 없다. 따라서 피고 2 명의의 위 소유권이전등기의 추정력은 번복되지 아니하므로, 원고의 위 주장은 이유 없다.

B. Part of the fourth and fifth land in this case

1) Determination as to the cause of claim

In light of the above 2. A. 1, concerning this part of the claim, the health team, the plaintiff's fleet, and the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's fleet, are presumed to be the owner of the land No. 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 31, 30, 29, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 22, 28, 5, and 5, respectively, on the ground of the above facts. Thus, the non-party 2, the plaintiff's owner of the land No. 4, and the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the ownership preservation registration of the non-party 4, the ownership of the land of this case, and the non-party 5, the non-party 2, the ownership preservation registration of the non-party 2, the ownership of the land of this case, were not proved.

2) Determination on Defendant 2’s defense

A) Defendant 2’s defense

Defendant 2, after completing the registration of ownership transfer on June 2, 1981, the land No. 4 (including the dispute portion) and the land No. 5 of this case, had been occupied in peace and openly with intent to own each of the above land for twenty (20) years, and the acquisition by prescription was completed, the above registration of ownership transfer is a valid registration consistent with the substantive relationship.

B) Determination

(1) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings with respect to the statements or images of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 13 of E, and the testimony of Non-Party 34 by Non-Party 1, Defendant 2, from June 2, 1981 to June 2, 1981, after completing the registration of ownership transfer on the land No. 4 (including the dispute portion) of this case and the land No. 5 of this case, the fact that Defendant 2 had taken a farming house on the land No. 5 of this case, is recognized.

(2) However, according to Article 197(1) of the Civil Act, an occupant of an object is presumed to have occupied the object with the intention of possession. However, in cases where it is proved that the possessor illegally occupied an immovable property owned by another person with the knowledge of the absence of legal requirements, such as a juristic act which may cause the acquisition of ownership at the time of the commencement of possession, barring any special circumstance, the possessor shall be deemed not to have an intention to reject the ownership of another person and to occupy it. Thus, the presumption of possession with the intention of possession is broken (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da11459 Decided March 13, 201).

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that Defendant 2 occupied without permission, knowing that he/she did not have the title at the time of commencement of possession of the land No. 4 of this case and the land No. 5 of this case, in light of the following circumstances, each of the facts as seen earlier and the evidence as seen earlier, and the evidence No. 1, 3, 14, and 27 of the evidence, and the fact-finding case’s fact-finding case’s fact-finding case’s fact-finding case’s fact-finding case’s fact-finding case’s trial court’s fact-finding case’s fact-finding case’s fact-finding case’s 28 November 2016. Thus, Defendant 2’s defense on the premise that Defendant 2’s possession is autonomous possession is without merit.

① The part of the instant land dispute and the land No. 5, which was assessed against the deceased non-party 1, are located in the area of the Defendant 2, Ansan-si △△△△ △△ △△△ △△ △△. Nonparty 2, who was born from 1902 to 1981, was living in the area of △△ △△ △△ △ △△ △△ Do, △△ △△, △△ △, △△ Do, and the above non-party 2’s children were dead on November 24, 1981, and were employed as the head of this area. Meanwhile, the non-party 35, who was solely inherited the deceased non-party 1’s inherited property, was born in 1921, △△ △△ Do, △ △△ Do, △△ Do, and omitted from 1924 to △△ Do, △△ 1924.

② On March 21, 1970, the letter sent by Defendant 2 to Nonparty 35, stating that “I, with respect to the forest land sold by Nonparty 2 to other, was a sloping (other than 35) forest land registered on the public register, after being aware of the mountain (forest),” and considering Defendant 2’s residential area or the position at the place, the transfer of the land at the time, the area over the fourth land dispute and the location of the deceased Nonparty 1’s land, including the land in this case’s fourth land and the fifth land, it seems that Defendant 2, like the land mentioned in the above letter, was aware that Nonparty 35, the sole heir of the deceased Nonparty 1, who is the circumstance, was the genuine right holder.

③ On June 2, 1981, Defendant 2 completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the portion of land dispute over the land No. 4 and the land No. 5 in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate (No. 3094) on December 5, 1973. As seen earlier, Defendant 2 was living with Nonparty 2 on the ground of the land No. 4 in the instant case’s land as well as on the land No. 5 until now, and Defendant 2 was living on the land No. 5.

3) Sub-decisions

After all, Defendant 2 is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of the restoration of authentic names in accordance with each inheritance shares listed in the separate sheet No. 3 (Plaintiff 3/9 shares, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 5 shares, respectively) with respect to the land No. 4 of this case and the land No. 5 of this case in the separate sheet No. 5. 3.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, among the plaintiff's claim against the defendant clan and the claim against the defendant 2, the part concerning the land dispute of this case and the land of this case concerning the plaintiff 4 and the land of this case shall be cited for each reason, and the part concerning the land of this case among the claim against the defendant 2 shall be dismissed for the reason that there is no reason. Among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part concerning the defendant clan and the part against the defendant 2 among the part concerning the defendant clan of this case and the part concerning the defendant 2 shall be unfair for the conclusion. Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant clan of this case and the part against the plaintiff 2 which ordered the above execution shall be revoked and the part against the defendant 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be ordered to implement the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership which

[Attachment Omission]

Judges Heung-Jin (Presiding Judge) Kim Jin-Jin Park

(1) The purport of the Plaintiff’s claim as of July 4, 2017 and the written application for change of the cause of the claim does not specify each share ratio of the Plaintiff, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 5. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff, Nonparty 3, Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 5’s claim for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name according to their respective inheritance shares (each relevant share stated in the attached Table 3). Thus, it is so decided as above.

2) The Defendants’ agent stated at the third pleading date of the trial that it does not dispute whether the identity of the title holder of the instant land and the Plaintiff’s fleet is identical.

3) Unlike the opinion of the above, it is reasonable to view that the presumption of the registration of the ownership transfer in the name of the defendant clan was broken as follows, even if it is presumed that the registration was completed in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership in the name of the defendant clan and consistent with the substantive legal relationship.

(4) Article 3 (1) The head of the Si/Gu/Eup/Myeon shall confirm the results of the investigation before the preceding Article and correct the reasons for the change in the farmland tax invoice and the repayment ledger together with a statement of the reasons for the change, and issue a certificate under Article 3 of the Act (attached Form 5, omitted).

5) The plaintiff asserted in the first instance court that the land of this case No. 3 is the land under the circumstances of the deceased non-party 1 and does not fall under the land originally acquired by the government under the former Farmland Reform Act (wholly amended by Act No. 561 of Oct. 13, 1960) and does not fall under the land subject to the application of the former Distribution Farmland Act, but the owner of the redemption ledger erroneously entered it in the redemption ledger non-party 33, thereby completing the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of repayment on Sept. 21, 1964 under the Farmland Act, and therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of defendant 2 should be cancelled as the registration of invalidation of the cause of the transfer of ownership. However, since the plaintiff's representative stated that the land of this case No. 3 did not dispute about the fact that it was farmland subject to distribution under the Farmland Reform Act at the first day of the first instance trial, the above assertion seems to have been withdrawn.

(6) Article 2 (1) of the Farmland Reform Act does not follow the procedures prescribed in the same Act before completing the registration procedure for transfer of ownership in the name of a person distributed as farmland under the same Act, and the Government shall directly implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership to the de facto owner who is followed by the right to the distributed farmland.

In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that the presumption of registration was broken as follows, even if the registration of ownership transfer of Defendant 2 with respect to the land Nos. 4 and 5 of this case was completed in accordance with the Act on Special Measures, and is presumed to be consistent with the substantive legal relationship.

8) Although it was not submitted during the pleadings of this case, since the registration of transfer of ownership by Defendant 2 with respect to the land Nos. 4 and 5 of this case was caused by sale and purchase on December 5, 1973 on the registry, the reason for the alteration of rights under the confirmation or letter of guarantee attached at the time seems to have been stated as well as the reason for the alteration of rights with the same contents. Considering the above ① or ③ circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the guarantee or certificate, which forms the basis for the above registration, is sufficiently doubtful that it is not true, and therefore, the presumption power of each of the above registrations under Defendant 2 was reversed.