1. European customs on inheritance, in case of the death of a family member of the family who is not the head of family;

2. Lifeal customs regarding inheritance in the case of the death of a family head who has only his wife and his/her husband and wife.

1. If a family member other than the head of Australia dies, it is customary in the old Civil Code that the lineal descendant’s children in the same family register with the exception of the married woman will be the heir, and the share of inheritance shall be equal without distinction of gender.

2. If the head of a family dies with only the wife and his/her husband and wife, the wife alone inherited his/her property with the inheritance of the head of a family, and his/her husband and wife may not inherit his/her property to his/her husband and wife.

Article 25 (1) of the Civil Code

Supreme Court Decision 4292Da1897 delivered on April 21, 1960, Decision 4292Da55 delivered on April 21, 1960 (Article 997(6)622 of the Civil Act, Article 8234 of the Civil Act) 69Da1324 delivered on April 14, 1970 (Article 103(13) of the Civil Act, Article 103(13) 623 of the Civil Act, Article 8460 house 18Da324 delivered on May 22, 1973, Supreme Court Decision 73Da941 delivered on January 15, 197, Article 73Da941 delivered on January 15, 197 (Abolition of the Civil Act)

Franchisium

Defendant 1 and 19 others

Busan District Court (82 Ghana436)

1. The part concerning the remaining Defendants other than Defendant 1 and 19 in the original judgment shall be revoked.

The Plaintiff

(A) As to Defendant 2, 7, and 8: (a) 1/12 of each ownership share of Nonparty 1 on real estate listed in (a) through (6) in the separate sheet; (b) 1/12 of each ownership share of Nonparty 1 on real estate; and (c) 1/6 of each ownership share of Nonparty 1 on real estate;

(B) As to Defendant 3/12 of the shares of Nonparty 1 in the same list: 1/10 of the shares of Nonparty 1 in the same list; 3/12 of the shares of Nonparty 1 in the same list; and 3/12 of the shares of Nonparty 1 in the real estate;

(C) As to Defendant 4, 5, and 6: (a) 2/12 of each share of Nonparty 1 in the same list; and (b) 1/6 of each share of Nonparty 1 in the same list; and (c) 2/12 of each share of Nonparty 1 in the real estate;

(D) As to Defendant 9 and 10: (a) as to each ownership share in real property listed in paragraphs (1) through (6) of the same list; (b)

(E) As to Defendant 11, 12, 15, 16, and 17: 1/10 of each ownership share of Nonparty 2 in the same list; 1/10 of each ownership share of Nonparty 2 in the same list; and 1/6 of each ownership share of Nonparty 2 in the real estate;

(f) As to Defendant 13's 3/10 of each ownership share of Nonparty 2 on real estate listed in paragraphs (1) through (6) of the same list and 3/10 of each ownership share of Nonparty 2 on real estate, and 1/6 of each ownership share of Nonparty 2 on real estate.

(G) As to Defendant 14: (a) 2/10 of each ownership share of Nonparty 2 in the same list; (b) 1/10 of each ownership share of Nonparty 2 in the same list; and (c) 2/10 of each ownership share of Nonparty 2 in the real estate;

(h) As to Defendant 18 and 20: (a) as to each of the Defendants’ respective shares in real property listed in paragraphs (1) through (6) of the same list; (b) as to each of the aforesaid Defendants’ shares in the same list; and (c) as to each of the aforesaid Defendants’ shares in real property;

Defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 respectively implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on September 18, 1982, Defendant 9, and 20 on November 9, 1982, respectively; Defendant 10, 14, and 15 on October 27, 1982; Defendant 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18 on September 17, 1982, respectively.

2. The part concerning Defendant 1 in the original judgment shall be modified as follows:

(A) Defendant 1 shall implement each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of termination of title trust on October 28, 1982, with respect to one fifth of the ownership shares of the deceased Nonparty 3 on real estate in paragraphs (1) through (6) of the same list as to the Plaintiff.

(B) The Plaintiff’s remaining claims against Defendant 1 are dismissed.

3. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 19 is dismissed.

4. Of the total litigation costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant 19 shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants shall be borne by the remaining Defendants.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

With respect to the remaining Defendants other than Defendant 1 and Defendant 19, the judgment of the court below as to “1/5 of each ownership share” and with respect to “1/10 of each ownership share” as to “1/10 of each ownership share,” the judgment of the court below as to “Defendant 2-A and 4,” and with respect to “Defendant 19, Defendant 19” as to “1/10 of each ownership share of the deceased non-party 4 on real estate listed in [Attachment List No. 1 and No. 6] as to “1/10 of each ownership share of the deceased non-party 1 in [Attachment List No. 1 and No. 19], each ownership transfer registration procedure is implemented on the ground of termination of title trust on the date

Litigation Costs shall be assessed against Defendant 19 in all of the first and second trials.

1. 당원이 인정하는 본건 부동산들에 관한 명의신탁 및 상속관계별지목록기재 (1) 내지 (6) 부동산에 관하여 소외 5, 6 주문기재의 소외 1, 2, 3, 피고 9, 10, 18, 20, 청구취지기재의 소외 4등 10인 명의의 각 소유권이전등기가 1948. 12. 29. 부산지방법원 울산등기소 접수 제12083호로서 1947. 5. 5. 매매를 원인으로, 같은 목록기재 (7), (8) 부동산에 관하여 소외 1, 2, 6, 7, 피고 18, 20등 6인 명의의 각 소유권이전등기가 1957. 8. 30. 위 등기소 접수 제3325호로서 같은달 25일 매매를 원인으로 각 경료되어 있는 사실은 당사자들 간에 다툼이 없고, 각 진정성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1 내지 8 (각 등기부등본), 갑 제2호증의 3(제적등본), 갑 제3호증의 1, 2(제적등본, 호적등본), 갑 제4호증의 1, 2(제적등본, 호적등본), 갑 제 5, 6호증(호적등본), 갑 제7호증의 1 내지 3(제적등본, 각 호적등본), 갑 제8호증의 1, 2(제적등본, 호적등본), 갑 제14호증의 1, 2(각 폐쇄등기부등본), 을 제1호증의 1 내지 5, 을 제3호증의 1 내지 6(각 등기부등본), 원심증인 소외 6, 8, 당심증인 소외 9의 각 증언에 의하여 각 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제11호증(유언서), 갑 제12호증(재산인수인계서), 원심증인 소외 6, 당심증인 소외 10, 11의 각 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제13호증(계약서), 갑 제18호증의 1(불교단체등록신청서), 갑 제18호증의 2(주지 취임등록신청서), 갑 제19호증(사찰재산 인수인계서), 갑 제21호증(재산목록), 갑 제22호증(취임승락서)의 각 기재내용과 원심증인 소외 8, 6, 당심증인 소외 10, 11, 원심 및 당심증인 소외 9, 12의 각 증언(다만 소외 9, 12의 증언중 뒤에 당원이 믿지 아니하는 각 부분은 제외)에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 평소 독실한 불교신자이던 망 소외 5는 그의 외아들인 망 소외 14가 일본에 유학하여 대학재학중에 1934. 9. 14. 26세의 미혼으로 병사하자 이를 애통해 오다가 그 10년 후인 1944. 4. 5.경 별지목록기재 (7), (8) 부동산들을 비롯한 여러 필지의 토지를 매입하여 같은 목록기재 (7), (8) 임야등을 경내로 하여 태화사라는 사찰을 스스로 건립하고 소외 14의 명복을 빌도록 하면서 위 사찰유지재산의 시주명목으로 위 태화사에 위 임야등의 토지들을 증여하였고, 이어서 1947. 5. 5.경 같은 목록기재(1) 내지 (6) 부동산들을 매입하여 같은 명목으로 위 태화사에 증여한 사실, 그런데 위 사찰의 창건자인 소외 5는 소정의 법절차에 따른 사찰등록을 미필하고 법인격을 갖추지 못하고 있던 위 태화사가 장차 사찰 및 주지등록을 필하거나 인격을 취득할 때까지는 위 시주재산들의 소유명의를 그 자신과 친족들 앞으로 명의신탁하여 두기로 방침을 정하여, 우선 같은 목록 (7), (8) 부동산에 관해서는 매입즉시 일단 그 스스로의 명의로 소유권이전등기를 경료했다가 뒤에 위와 같이 그 친족등 6인 앞으로 각 소유권이전등기를 경료하여 명의신탁하여 두었고, 한편 같은 목록기재 (1) 내지 (6) 부동산에 관하여는 그 매입 이듬해에 위와 같이 그 자신 및 그 친족등 10인 앞으로 각 소유권이전등기를 경료하여 명의신탁하였던 사실, 그후 소외 5는 1963. 3. 경 소외 12를 위 태화사의 주지로 맞아들여 소외 12로 하여금 그 주관하에 종전의 규모가 작고 낡은 사원건물을 헐고 규모가 더 큰 건물들을 신축하게 함과 아울러, 사찰의 명칭을 금강선원으로 고치고 1963. 7. 경 관계당국에 소정의 법절차에 따라 불교단체등록 및 주지취임등록의 절차를 마치게 한 다음, 위 사찰의 중건사업이 대충 마무리될 무렵인 1966. 7. 14.경에는 서울에 소재한 재단법인 선학원(대한불교 조계종에 속한 단체로 그 산하에 다시 단위사찰을 거느리고 있음)에 소속하게 하면서, 이 때 소외 12와 상의한 결과 원고 사찰에 증여한 재산중 일부에 관해서는 그에 따라 원고 앞으로 소유권이전등기를 하되, 그 자신이 사재를 사주하여 위와 같은 의도하에 원고 사찰을 창건하였다는 점과 이 점으로 말미암아 그 자신 및 그 친족들의 후손들이 원고 사찰과 특별한 인연을 가지고 있다는 점을 오래도록 공시하기 위해 나머지 재산에 관하여는 종전과 같이 계속 명의신탁해 두려는 방침을 정하여, 이 방침에 따라 경남 울주군 울산읍 (상세지번 생략) 임야 2정 2반 7무보등 6필지의 토지에 관해서는 원고 사찰에게 각 소유권이전등기를 경료하여 주었으나(그 소유명의는 위 재단법인 선학원으로 되었음), 별지목록 기재 (1) 내지 (8) 부동산들에 관해서는 명의신탁된 종전상태 그대로 둔 사실, 그후 소외 5는 1967. 4. 6. 사망하였는 바, 소외 5가 위와 같이 별지목록기재 (1) 내지 (8) 부동산등 원고 사찰에 증여하였던 토지들은 그 증여시부터 현재에 이르기까지 위와 같이 원고 사찰앞으로 소유권이전등기가 된 위 토지들과 아무런 차별없이 원고 사찰에 의해 관리수익되어온 사실, 주문기재의 소외 1, 2, 3 등은 별표기재 각 해당일에 사망하여 이들과 같은표 기재 각 해당의 신분관계에 있는 피고 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 등이 같은표 기재 각 해당 지분비율로 위 망인들의 권리의무를 포괄적으로 각 상속한 사실을 각 인정할 수 있고, 이에 일부 어긋나는 소외 9, 12의 각 일부증언은 앞서 당원이 채용한 증거들에 비추어 이를 믿지 아니하며, 을 제2호증(불기소증명)의 기재내용은 위 인정에 방해가 되지 아니하고, 달리 위 인정을 뒤집을 만한 증거가 없다.

In addition, as seen above, if Non-party 5, the creator of the plaintiff temple, donated his personal property to the plaintiff temple, which was registered as the inspector and the substance of the plaintiff temple, and registered the trust to the trustee as above, the plaintiff temple shall be deemed to have succeeded as a matter of course to the effect of the title trust act performed by Non-party 5 when it was appointed with the substance as the temple, or when it was registered as the temple at the latest, or when it was acquired as a juristic person.

2. Determination as to the part of the claim against the Defendants other than Defendant 1 and 19

On September 18, 1982, Defendant 11, 12, 13, 16, 17, and 18 on September 18, 1982, Defendant 9, and Defendant 2, 4, 5, 5, 6, 7, and 8, on which the Plaintiff expressed the intent of termination of each of the above title trust to the remaining Defendants, are clearly indicated in the records, each of the above facts delivered to Defendant 9, 20 on October 9 of the same year through his/her legal representative. Accordingly, each of the above Defendants’ predecessors and each of the above Defendants 9, 10, 18, and 20 and the Plaintiff’s respective title trust agreements with each of the above Defendants were terminated on each of the above delivery dates, and the above Defendants are obligated to effect each of the above procedures on each of the co-ownership share or co-ownership share inherited in their own name.

3. Determination on the claim against Defendant 1

The plaintiff is the cause of claim against the above defendant. The non-party 3 left the above defendant on September 15, 1950 and died, and the above defendant alone inherited the non-party 3's property. The non-party 1's claim against the above defendant is asserted that the non-party 3's ownership transfer registration procedure for the whole non-party 1's ownership of the non-party 3's claim as to the non-party 1's ownership of the above defendant's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 5's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 9's non-party 1's.

4. Determination on the claim against Defendant 19

The plaintiff asserted that the non-party 4 solely inherited the non-party 4's property on March 15, 1953, and that the non-party 4 claimed that the non-party 4 sought the execution of each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer as to the non-party 4's shares in the attached list on the ground of termination of title trust on the date when a copy of the complaint of this case was delivered to the above defendant on March 15, 1953, and that the non-party 4 was deceased on the ground of the non-party 4's sole inheritance. According to the above evidence, the non-party 4 died on March 15, 1953, and the non-party 4 was not the non-party 4's wife's lineal descendant and the non-party 4-2's non-party 15's lineal descendant were the non-party 4's heir's heir's heir's heir's heir's death without any dispute over the establishment of each complaint and the non-party 4's heir's heir's heir's death.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff accepted all the claims against the remaining defendants except the defendant 1 and 19 on the ground that they are well-grounded. The claims against the defendant 1 are justified only for the above recognized part, and the remaining claims against the defendant 19 are dismissed, and all claims against the defendant 19 are without merit. The part concerning the remaining defendants except the defendant 1 and 19 in the original judgment is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal against this is with merit. Thus, this part of the original judgment is revoked and it is unfair to order the above other defendants to perform the obligation to perform the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer. The part concerning the defendant 19 is modified as stated in Paragraph (2) of the above original judgment, and the part concerning the defendant 19 is just and without merit. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant 19 is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of the Civil Procedure Act by applying Articles 89, the proviso to Article 92, Articles 93, 95, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Ansan-tae (Presiding Judge) Kim Dong-ho et al.