The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed as having proved that the Defendant was a North Korean and became a North Korean by acquiring Chinese nationality before the completion of each registration of ownership transfer of this case, and the Defendant still constitutes a North Korean resident subject to the Act on Special Cases Concerning Family Relationship and Inheritance between South and North Korean Residents (hereinafter “the Act on Special Cases Concerning Family Relationship”).

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the South and North Korean Family Special Act applies only to the residents of North Korea, and it cannot be applied to the residents who escape from North Korea. Since the defendant is currently residing in China through escape from North Korea, the judgment of the court below applying the South and North Korean Family Special Act to the defendant is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles on the subject of application of the South and North

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant currently deserts North Korea and resides in China, so whether the Act on Special Cases concerning Family of South and North Korea applies to a resident who deserts North Korea can not affect the conclusion of the lower judgment.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court determined that the registration of transfer of ownership of this case, which was completed without going through an administrator of property, was null and void under Article 15 of the South and North Korean Family Special Act.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope of application of the Inter-Korean Family Special Act, contrary to what is alleged in the

3. As to the third ground for appeal, the lower court is as stated in its reasoning.