Whether the registration of ownership transfer of real estate is legitimate;

Since the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate is an invalid registration that lacks the cause thereof, it is obligated to implement the procedures for cancellation of ownership registration and transfer registration, barring special circumstances.

1. Defendant 00 shall implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed with No. 3364 of July 7, 198, as to 00 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 0- 00 - 00 - 00 - 661 m2

2. As to the 3/15 shares of 00 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 661 m2, Defendant Republic of Korea understand each of the 2/15 shares with respect to the above real estate to the remaining plaintiffs except Plaintiff 00, respectively, due to the sale on August 4, 1958.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff 00 is the wife of the deceased Kim 00 (money 00, resident registration number*************) on February 15, 1984) and the remaining plaintiffs except the plaintiff 00 are the children of the deceased Kim 00.

B. On August 4, 1958, the deceased Kim00 concluded a contract between the Republic of Korea for the sale of real estate devolvingly owned at 00,00,000, the bid price of 1200,000,000, which is 20,000, and thereafter, the purchase price was paid at 5 times from around that time to December 7, 1962.

C. The above 00 00 - 00 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 1 200 - 0 - 0 - 1 00 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 1 - 1 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 0 - 1 - 0 - 0 0 - 0 - 1 - 1 - 0 00 - among the public cadastral records were divided into 1-7 , 1987 1-32 - - 1- 37 , 1987, and 1-39 - 0 - 00 - 0 0 - 00 0 - 00 - 00 - 00 - 661 m. (hereinafter referred to as this case).

D. Meanwhile, as a deceased person who did not exist on March 14, 1988, the name of the deceased Kim Jong-soo and Chinese name similar to that of the deceased Kim** (money*, resident registration number************)'s certificate of personal seal impression and resident registration card for each household were forged (the plaintiff asserts that it was forged or forged by the defendant, or as a person in charge of state property of the defendant and Daejeon regional tax office*****. The defendant asserts that it was forged or falsified by the defendant**) on March 15, 198, the above ** on March 15, 1988, the above Kim 00 and the defendant Lee 1-40 (61 square meters), divided from 00 square meters, 200 square meters, 9,500,000 won, 100 square meters, 200 square meters, 198, 200 square meters, 200,000 square meters or more, 10.

E. Around that time, the defendant Lee 00 prepared an application for change of purchaser's name with regard to 00 0 - 00 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 0 - 00 - 0 - 00 - 1 - 00 - 00 - 1 - 00 - 1 - 00 - 1 00 - 1 00 - 00 - 1 00 - 200 - 1 00 - 1 000 - 198 on July 7, 198 for change in the name of the defendant Lee 00 on the ground that he acquired the above property now came to exist, and thereafter, upon application for change of purchaser's name with respect to the property belonging to the defendant Lee 00, 000 - 000 - prior to this case's real estate.

F. On the other hand, at around May 198, 198, the defendant Lee 00 prepared and submitted a letter to the Director of the Regional Tax Office of 00 'the original purchaser Kim*** the property acquired before 1987 from his 1987, or the property he did not receive the due diligence due to his behavior, and then when the buyer or his heir claims the profits and rights, he promised to return the property without any condition and submit this letter.'

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 5, Gap 1, 1, 2, 6 through 11, Gap 14, 15, Gap 18 to 23, Gap 29, 31, Gap 32-10, 22, 23, each of the statements, and the purport of the body before oral argument

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant Lee 00 on the instant real estate shall be deemed null and void. Barring any special circumstance, Defendant Lee 00, who is the true owner of the instant real estate, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of transfer of ownership as of 00 00 - 00 - 0 - 0 - 0 0 - 00 - 00 - 000 - 000 - 0000 - on July 7, 1988, and Defendant Republic of Korea has the obligation to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of transfer of ownership as of 0 00 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 1- 661 m3/15 - 661 m20 m2, 1958 for each of the above shares to the Plaintiffs except the Plaintiff Park 00.

B. Determination on Defendant 00’s defense

(1) Since the above defendant had registered as the owner of the above real estate for more than 10 years after commencement of possession without negligence, it is insufficient to recognize that the acquisition by prescription of the register of the above real estate has been completed, and that the registration has been effective in accordance with the substantive relations, and there is no other evidence to recognize that the defendant Lee this0 has commenced possession of the above real estate without negligence. On the other hand, as acknowledged above, there was ① the indication of the above real estate at the time of the sale contract between the above defendant Lee * 00,000,000 divided into 1-40,000,000, and there was no reason to conclude that the above real estate was divided into 1-7, and the lot number correction was not made before the above ** the defendant did not have prepared a copy of the register at the time of preparation of the above sale contract* as to the above real estate's possession of the above real estate with the person who was the owner of the above real estate * as to the above 198,000,00,000.

(2)The assertion of extinctive prescription

Defendant 00 again paid the purchase price for the instant real estate on December 7, 1962. Since the lawsuit of this case was filed on September 15, 2006, which had been more than ten years thereafter, Defendant 100 had expired by prescription. However, as seen earlier, the instant real estate is owned by the purchaser, and if the purchaser completely pays the purchase price in accordance with the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to Ownership, it is naturally transferred to the purchaser. The Plaintiffs’ right to claim for transfer of ownership, the heir of the deceased Kim 00 who paid the purchase price in full, is not the so-called real right right, and is not subject to extinctive prescription (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5836, Mar. 23, 2006). The instant claim against Defendant 00 was filed against the Plaintiffs, the owner of the instant real estate, claiming for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the Defendant 00, and therefore, the aforementioned Defendant’s defense is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.