Plaintiff (Law Firm Cheongju, Attorneys Yu Jae-sung et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 4 (Law Firm Jeong-dong, Attorney Park Woo-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

January 21, 2009

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.

Main purport of the claim

The Plaintiff

(a) The recovery of a petitioner is based on title;

(1) Defendant 1: (a) the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1,931 square meters of the State Council (number 1 omitted);

D. 2, 3, and 4 each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to shares of 1/3 of 2,19 square meters in orchard 2,19 square meters in the territory of the Sincheon-si, Kimcheon-si.

B. As to the land size 2,119 square meters in the Gu-U.S. Si, Kimcheon-si, the Defendant-U.S. Agricultural Cooperative:

(i) the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage completed on June 1, 2004 by Daegu District Court Kimcheon-cheon Branch of the District Court No. 13375,

Dor. Dor. Dor. Dor. 1, 2004, completed by Law No. 13376 of June 1, 2004

Article 22534 of the Act on the Registration of the Establishment of Mortgage on July 10, 2007 by the same court;

D. Each performance shall be made.

Preliminary Claim

The Plaintiff

A. Defendant 1: (a) the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer completed on April 27, 2000 as the Daegu District Court Decision 9836, which was completed on April 27, 2000, with respect to the 1,931 square meters of the State History (number 1 omitted);

B. Defendant 2, 3, and 4: each transfer of ownership completed on June 1, 2004 by each Daegu District Court Decision 13374 with respect to the respective share of 1/3 of the 2,119 square meters in orchard 2,19 square meters in the city of Mapo-si, Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si;

C. As to the land size 2,119 square meters in the Gu-U.S. Si, Kimcheon-si, the Defendant-U.S. Agricultural Cooperative:

(i) the registration of the establishment of a new mortgage completed on June 1, 2004 by Daegu District Court Kimcheon-cheon Branch of the District Court No. 13375,

Dor. Dor. Dor. Dor. 1, 2004, completed by Law No. 13376 of June 1, 2004

Article 2534 of the Act on the Establishment of Mortgage on July 10, 2007

Each procedure for cancellation registration shall be implemented.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are either disputed between the parties or acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each of the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5-1, 2, 3, 6, and 7-1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10-1, 2, 3, 3, 11-1, 4, 1, 2, 3, 2-2, 3, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-1, 5-2, 5, 5-3, 5-2, 5-2, 5-3, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, 5-3, 5-2, 5-2, and 7 of 5-2, 5-2, 5-2, and 7 of 5-3.

A. On February 1, 1990, Nonparty 1 entered into a title trust agreement with Nonparty 2 on the charge of Nonparty 2 with Nonparty 1,931 square meters of the State Council (number 1 omitted), 1,931 square meters of the Gu (number 2 omitted), 2,119 square meters of the Gu (number 2 omitted), 2,19 square meters of the Gu (number 2 omitted), 1,808 square meters of the Gu (number 4 omitted), 1,808 square meters of the Gu (number 4 omitted), 2,109 square meters of the Gu (number 5 omitted), 2,109 square meters of the Gu (number 5 omitted), and entered into a title trust agreement with Nonparty 1’s name on February 23, 1990.

B. However, when Nonparty 1 was unable to register the ownership of the above four parcels of land under his name as farmland relation, Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 4 agreed to register the ownership of the above four parcels of land in the name of trust in the name of Nonparty 4, and explained this circumstance to Nonparty 3, and subsequently, Nonparty 3 agreed to transfer the above four parcels of land from Nonparty 3 to Nonparty 4, and Nonparty 4 completed the registration of ownership transfer as of August 22, 191, as of the above four parcels of land in the name of Nonparty 4 by the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-cheon Branch of August 22, 191.

C. After that, on September 30, 1991, Nonparty 1 was placed in the office capacity due to traffic accidents, and Nonparty 4 completed the registration of creation of mortgage on the instant land on July 23, 1992 to Nonparty 5.

D. Meanwhile, Nonparty 2 filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 4 seeking damages arising from the act of establishing a collateral security against Nonparty 4 as a title truster of the instant real estate in Daegu District Court, and the court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff on the ground that “Non-Party 2 shall be deemed the actual right holder of the instant land, but it shall not be deemed that Non-Party 2 is the actual right holder of the instant land without any superior” ( Daegu District Court Decision 94Na2660, Daegu District Court Decision 95Na4566, Supreme Court Decision 96Da35293, Daegu District Court Decision 96Da35293).

E. In other words, Nonparty 2 filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 4, 3, 1, and 5 on the grounds that “the title trust agreement between Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 1 is null and void with respect to the instant land,” and that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 4 and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 5 is null and void, and Nonparty 3 is subject to the sales contract, and Nonparty 1 is obligated to perform each registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 2 according to the title trust agreement.” However, on September 5, 1997, the above court ruled against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the title trust agreement between Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1 is null and void in violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Name,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive at that time (the above court 97Da9699).

F. On October 7, 1997, upon delegation by Nonparty 2, Nonparty 6 filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 4, 3, and 5 under the name of Nonparty 1 for the same reason as the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-gu 97Gahap28666, the Daegu District Court rendered a favorable judgment on October 5, 1999 (Seoul High Court Decision 98Na103, decided on November 17, 1997 that “the above 97Gahap28666, which Nonparty 1 raised against Nonparty 4, was appointed as a special representative,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on March 5, 199 (Seoul High Court Decision 98Na103, July 103, 199; Supreme Court Decision 9Da19940, September 14, 199).

G. Meanwhile, according to the above judgment, Nonparty 2, 6, and 7 entered into the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land in the name of Nonparty 1, and again, Nonparty 2 agreed to title trust with Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 7 obtained the registration of change of Nonparty 1’s personal seal impression and the changed personal seal impression on March 26, 199, using it, entered into a sales contract between Nonparty 7 and Nonparty 1 on April 15, 199, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 1 according to the above judgment on April 17, 199, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in his name on April 20, 199.

H. Meanwhile, on April 27, 200, Defendant 1 purchased the above (number 1 omitted) land and completed the registration of ownership transfer under Daegu District Court Decision 9836 to receive Kimcheon Branch, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 to purchase 1/3 shares of the above (number 2 omitted) and completed the registration of ownership transfer under receipt No. 13374 on June 1, 2004, as to the above (number 2 omitted) land, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Daegu District Court Decision 13375 to the defendant U.S. Agricultural Cooperatives, the Daegu District Court Decision 1375 on June 1, 200, the registration of creation of superficies under the Act No. 1376 on June 1, 200, and the registration of creation of superficies under the same court No. 22534 on July 10, 207, respectively.

I. Nonparty 1 continued to be in an unknown state after the above accident, and died on September 20, 2007 with the property heir (the wife Nonparty 10 divorced on February 27, 2002).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff is the cause of the instant claim. The instant land is not the land trusted by Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 1, the Plaintiff’s father, but the land was the property of Nonparty 1 purchased by Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 7 and 6 reported the change of Nonparty 1’s seal imprint without permission. The registration of transfer of ownership in Nonparty 7 was completed by using it, and thus, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 7 is null and void. The Plaintiff seeks against the Defendants for implementation of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendants based on the registration in the name of Nonparty 7, and the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 7 or the registration

B. As to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant land is the land that Nonparty 2 held in title trust with Nonparty 1, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 1 by obtaining a judgment against the denying person, and subsequently, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 1 was completed under the cooperation of Nonparty 6, who was the special representative of Nonparty 1, and again completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 7. Therefore, it cannot be complied with the Plaintiff’

C. As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that even if the instant land was owned by Nonparty 2 to Nonparty 1, the title trust agreement between Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1 is null and void in accordance with the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, and that the title trust agreement between Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 1 acquired the complete ownership of the instant land. Nonparty 2 is merely a claim for the refund of purchase fund against Nonparty 1, but Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 7 merely completed the registration of ownership transfer under Nonparty 7’s name by means of Nonparty 1’s change of seal imprint, etc., on the ground that Nonparty 2 and Nonparty 7’s consent, who did not have the authority to represent Nonparty 1, cannot

3. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserted that the non-party 1 was the true owner who purchased the land of this case, not the title trustee, of the land of this case. The above argument is against the facts acknowledged as above, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to reverse it, and no other evidence exists (the non-party 1 asserted that the non-party 1 was a title trust agreement with the non-party 2 in the case of the above 97Gahap2866 through the special representative appointed by the court, and as long as the judgment by the appointment of the above special representative is not null and void as a matter of course, it cannot be asserted otherwise).

B. Next, there is no dispute between the parties that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 20, 199 by forging relevant documents, such as the registration of change of Nonparty 7’s personal seal imprint, and Nonparty 7’s personal seal imprint, with respect to whether the registration of ownership transfer is null and void. Nonparty 1’s registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of Nonparty 1’s name on the date for preparatory pleadings and the date for preparatory pleadings, but the Defendant revoked the above fact on the date for preparatory pleadings (the preparatory documents of August 11, 2008), but Nonparty 1 was in the state of business ability until the time of death after the traffic accident after September 30, 191. Nonparty 7 obtained the registration of change of Nonparty 1’s personal seal imprint and the changed Nonparty 1’s personal seal imprint on March 26, 199, and Nonparty 1’s registration of ownership transfer cannot be acknowledged to have been made under the name of Nonparty 1’s non-party 6’s non-party 1’s name or the changed personal seal imprint.

C. As to this, the Defendants asserted that the registration of ownership transfer in Nonparty 7 is in accord with the substantive relationship.

(1) The Real Estate Real Name Registration Act provides for the grace period for the conversion of the real estate under the name of the title truster for a long period of time. The Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name is prohibited by the enactment of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, as well as the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, and it is recognized that the existing title trust agreement is valid for a limited period of time to promote legal stability, thereby guaranteeing the title truster an opportunity for conversion of the real estate under the name of the title truster by the method of the cancellation of title trust within the aforesaid period. Thus, even if the title truster alleged that the title truster is the actual right holder, and the agreement for the conversion of the real estate under the name of the title truster's name was entered into between the title truster and the title truster's title truster's right holder's right to the real estate under the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Name's Name, the title truster's right to the real estate under the title truster's title trust agreement cannot be seen as valid.

D. The court below held that the non-party 1 was the actual right holder of the land of this case and decided that the non-party 2 was the actual right holder of the land of this case, and that the non-party 1 was the real right holder of the real estate of this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the third party title trust agreement with the non-party 4 separately. The non-party 2 filed a lawsuit against the non-party 4 on the ground that the non-party 2 was the actual right holder of the land of this case before the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name was enforced. The judgment against the non-party 4, 3, 1, and 5 on the ground that the non-party 1 was the actual right holder of the land of this case. The non-party 2 had the right to claim for the registration of title transfer under the name of the non-party 1, the non-party 4, 3, and 5 on October 7, 199, which was the above decision of the court below and the non-party 1.

Article 22(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The registration of ownership transfer under the name of Nonparty 1 pursuant to the title trust agreement between Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 7 is completed, instead of cancelling the title trust agreement and restoring ownership within the grace period prescribed in the above Act.” According to the above evidence, Defendant 1, as the wife of Nonparty 7, entered into a sales contract with Nonparty 2 (the form of a sales contract appears to have been entered into in the name of Nonparty 7) with the knowledge that the actual right holder of the land located within the above (number 1 omitted) is Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 2 paid the sales amount to Nonparty 11, and Nonparty 2 agreed to transfer part of the above (number 2 omitted) land to Nonparty 11, and Nonparty 11 was ordered to sell the above (number 2 omitted) land to Nonparty 7, and Nonparty 7 sold the above land to Nonparty 2,3, and Nonparty 4 and Nonparty 2 had the real right to seek the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Nonparty 1, which is the real right of this case.”

D. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants, based on the fact that the Plaintiff is the true owner of the instant land or the registration of invalidity of cause, is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Lee Han-il