(zb)where the Defendant voluntarily registers the transfer of the co-owned property of the Defendant, to the extent that the Defendant is obliged to order the cancellation thereof;

Even if the defendant's transfer registration of real estate owned by the plaintiffs and the defendant was made with his own own own possession without the plaintiffs' consent, the registration is completed, and the part related to the defendant's share is consistent with the substantive relation, so it is unlawful to order the defendant to cancel the whole

Article 262 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and two others

Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daejeon District Court Decision 85Na416 delivered on February 12, 1986

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiffs and the deceased non-party 1, whose father is the plaintiffs and the defendant's father, registered the preservation of ownership of the real estate of this case on July 1, 1940, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under five shapes, such as the plaintiffs, the defendant, and the deceased non-party 2, etc., and that the defendant obtained false certificates, etc. from the farmland members under his jurisdiction without obtaining the plaintiffs' consent and obtained false certificates, etc. from them in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Transfer of Real Estate Ownership Registration. Such fact-finding by the court below is just and there is no violation

The second point is the reason for this.

The lower court, while viewing the instant real estate as co-ownership between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant, ordered the Defendant to cancel the entire registration of his name.

However, the registration is completed, and the part concerning the defendant's share should be deemed to be consistent with the substantive relationship, but the order to cancel it even with the defendant's share can not be said to have affected the conclusion of the judgment because of the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the substantive relationship of registration in the co-owned real estate or the misunderstanding of the reasoning for lack of reason. The arguments are

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Panel Division. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Byung-su (Presiding Justice)