Whether one spouse in a marital state is entitled to become the heir of the other spouse in a marital state.

Even if the marriage of Eul, who was his wife before his death is terminated due to the adjudication of disappearance against Gap, was married concurrently with other spouse of the other spouse of the former spouse, unless the former marriage with Gap has been cancelled, it cannot be said that the status of inheritance of the property of Gap, which is the other spouse of the former spouse, is lost unless the former marriage with Eul has been canceled.

Articles 1003, 810, and 816 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and two others

1. The plaintiffs

A. Defendant 1: (a) the registration of transfer of ownership completed on July 28, 1965 by the Chuncheon District Court’s receipt of its registration office on July 28, 1965; (b) the registration of transfer of ownership completed on January 31, 1990 by the receipt of the same registration office on the real estate stated in the No. 497;

B. The defendant 2 completed on March 28, 1990 as the receipt of the same registry office on March 28, 1990 with respect to the real estate listed in the first list;

C. Defendant 3 clans implement each procedure for registration of cancellation of each registration of ownership preservation, completed on July 8, 1970 by the receipt of the same registry office on July 27, 1970 on the third real estate listed in the same list, and completed on June 8, 1970 on the fourth real estate listed in the same list by the same registry office.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

The plaintiffs 1 and 2 were deceased on July 28, 1965 with respect to the above non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 1'

As to this, Defendant 2, his mother, cultivated and possessed 1 real estate from June 27, 1967 to 20 years passed since 1967.6.27. The prescriptive acquisition was completed on June 27, 1987, and thereafter, Nonparty 2 donated it to Defendant 2 around January 1990. Thus, this defense is valid in accordance with the substantive relationship. Thus, in full view of Nonparty 2 and the witness’s testimony from around 1956 to May 26, 1961, Plaintiff 1 cultivated 1 real estate and Plaintiff 2 cultivated it after the marriage on June 27, 1967, and there is no evidence to prove that Nonparty 2 continued to cultivate it until June 27, 1987.

In addition, Defendant 2’s defense to the effect that the title trust relationship was established and valid since Nonparty 2 completed the prescriptive acquisition as above with respect to the real estate by Nonparty 2, but there is no evidence to prove that the prescriptive acquisition has been completed to Nonparty 2. As such, the above defense based on this premise is without merit.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case seeking the implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of each of the above registrations are justified, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants who lost the property. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Ansan-gu