Claim for Cancellation of Registration which is inconsistent with substantial relations but null and void;

In seeking the cancellation of registration by Gap who has acquired the title of registration from Gap who is the title holder of registration in accordance with the anti-social doctrine, and by seeking the cancellation of registration by Gap who has again acquired the title of registration from Gap who has acquired the title of registration from Gap who has obtained the title of registration, regardless of whether it conforms to the substantive relationship

Articles 213 and 404 of the Civil Act

Mayang-gun

Defendant 1 and one other

Defendant 3

Busan District Court (73 Gohap1434,1440)

All appeals filed by Defendant 1, 2 and Defendant 3 (Counterclaim Plaintiff) are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

(Main Office)

With respect to the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant - Plaintiff only)

As to the 235 square meters of forests and fields (number omitted), Defendant 1: (a) was registered on November 10, 1972 by the Busan District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 7501, Nov. 10, 1972; (b) was registered on November 6, 1972; (c) was registered on November 10, 200; and (d) was registered on November 6, 2002 as to the above real estate; (d) was registered on November 6, 2000; (e) was registered on November 10, 200; and (e) was registered on June 13, 1973; (e) was registered on June 13, 1973; and (e) was registered on May 29, 2005.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

(Counterclaim)

The plaintiff against the defendant 3

A building constructed on the ground of 235 square meters for forests and fields shall be collected, and the amount of money shall be paid at the rate of KRW 3,000 per month from June 14, 1973 to the delivery of Dong forests and fields.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the plaintiff and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff, and the defendant 3 has the same judgment as the entries in the counterclaim claim.

First, as to the principal claim:

The court below's decision that held the non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 7's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1'

If so, the registration made in sequence with Defendant 1 and 2 by Nonparty 3 was made unlawfully as a means of escape to evade the cancellation execution of the name of anti-social registration, and thus, it cannot be deemed null and void pursuant to Article 103 of the Civil Code. The registration of the name of the defendant Han-soo acquired in succession from this shall also be based on the fact that there is no cause.

However, the defendants' legal representative has returned the registration of this case to Defendant 1 as the result of the above cancellation lawsuit. The defendant's legal representative returned the registration of this case to the same defendant by the method of the transfer registration from November 10, 1972. Since this is consistent with the substance of rights, it thereafter is asserted that the registration of defendant 2 and 3 is valid. However, as seen earlier, the registration of this case which was acquired again by Defendant 1 on November 10, 1972 and the registration of Defendant 2 transferred are invalid by the anti-social legal principles, and it cannot be rejected the plaintiff's claim for cancellation on November 10, 1972 on the ground that the registration of this case is invalid regardless of its substantive relation. Thus, the defendants' legal representative's above assertion is without merit, and even if the registration of this case between the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 was made by the agreement between the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 on November 10, 1972, it shall not be asserted that the above registration is invalid by the defendant 3130.

Next, with respect to the counterclaim claim by the defendant 3, since the registration of the name of the defendant was returned to the invalidity of the cause as determined in the principal lawsuit, the defendant's counterclaim claim under the premise that its validity is valid is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants against the plaintiff is justified, and the defendant 3's counterclaim is dismissed. The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with this conclusion, and the defendants' appeal against this is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, 93, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Choi Jong-ro (Presiding Judge)