1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 15, 1968 in the name of the Plaintiff clan in accordance with the Act on Special Measures, which was in force on September 24, 1979 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet of facts on the premise of the premise (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

On March 10, 2014, Defendant E, who was the representative of Defendant C’s clan (hereinafter “Defendant C’s clan”), filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff’s clan seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the cancellation of title trust with respect to each of the instant land as the Suwon District Court’s Branch Branch Branch Decision 2014Gahap559.

On July 3, 2014, which was the first day for pleading, the Plaintiff’s clan and the first day for pleading, made a compromise between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s clan, stating that “the Plaintiff’s clan shall implement the procedures for ownership transfer registration on each of the instant land on the grounds of the termination of title trust on March 18, 2014” (hereinafter referred to as “instant compromise”), and the protocol of compromise was made.

Plaintiff

A clan filed a lawsuit for quasi-deliberation against the defendant's clan as the branch court of Suwon District Court No. 2014 Gohap21 on the protocol of conciliation of this case.

On July 20, 2016, Defendant D revoked the instant protocol of conciliation on the ground that it is not a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff clan, and on the other hand, it was insufficient to recognize that Defendant D was a title trust with the Plaintiff’s clan, which dismissed Defendant D’s claim on the ground that it was insufficient to recognize that Defendant D was a title trust with the Plaintiff’s

The defendant clan appealed as Seoul High Court 2016Na11792 and continues to be in the appellate trial.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 29, Eul evidence 9-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the ground of the plaintiff clan's claim

A. The defendant Eul, who was the representative of the defendant clan, who was the representative of the defendant clan, was aware that he was not the representative of the plaintiff clan, but did not know that he was not the representative of the plaintiff clan.