Effect of a protocol of compromise to which the deceased is a party

Since the call for filing a lawsuit against a deceased person as a party is null and void as a matter of course, it is impossible to claim the invalidity of the judgment for cancellation and to claim the alteration of rights in the substance by asserting the invalidity.

Article 204 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 4294Da382 delivered on December 14, 1961 (Supreme Court Decision 6667Da882 delivered on November 30, 1964, Decision 64Da882 delivered on November 30, 1964 (Supreme Court Decision 6096 and 6097 delivered on November 30, 196, Decision 204(21)906 of the Civil Procedure Act, Decision 197Da301 delivered on December 301, 196)

Plaintiff clan

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul and Criminal District Court Support (69A874) of the Republic of Korea Act

The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

Defendant 1’s attorney, on December 13, 1966, completed the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration due to the sale as of December 2, 1952, which was executed on December 13, 196, with respect to the Plaintiff on December 13, 1966, 79, 13, 6, 13, 79, 13, 196, 50, 200, 3217, 3217, 3217, 196, for the above forest land.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants.

The defendants shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. First, we examine this safety defense.

The defendants dispute the ability of the plaintiff clan and the representative's ability of the plaintiff clan, and the clan is a group of the clans naturally created for the purpose of protecting the graves of the common ancestor, conducting religious services and promoting friendship among the members of the clan, so it is not necessary to establish a special organization, and the clan's representative is not required to convene the clans or the clans or the clans or the clans or the non-party 1 shall convene the meeting of the majority of the members present at the meeting and appoint them as a resolution of the majority of the members present at the meeting of the clans or the clans or the clans or the clans or the non-party 5-3 (Minutes of the clans) evidence No. 5-1, No. 3, No. 2 (No. 1, No. 82) of the defendant's evidence No. 1, No. 97 (No. 1, No. 97) which is the defendant's testimony at the court of first instance, and the non-party 2's testimony and the non-party 1, the non-party 3's defense for the defendant 1 and the defendant 2's defense.

2. We examine the following merits:

On December 13, 1966, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 2, 1952 with respect to the above 79 13 6 Marisan 79 Marisan 79 Marisan 62, Defendant 1, on December 13, 1966, on which Nonparty 2 purchased the above 5 Marisan Maridong 16, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 2, 1952, on December 13, 196, on which Defendant 2 had received the same registration office No. 3217, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on August 13, 196, on the 7th day of the same month, Nonparty 1, 2, and 3, Nonparty 1, 6, on the 5th day of the above 5th day of the execution thereof, and Nonparty 1, 6, on the 5th day of the above 5th day of the execution thereof, the Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, 16 97.

The cost of application shall be borne by each person, and the fact that the registration of ownership transfer has been completed as above by Defendant 1 pursuant to the same protocol of conciliation shall be acknowledged as being the party to the death, and the above telephone of Defendant 1 shall be null and void as it is a party to the death. Accordingly, the registration of ownership transfer by Defendant 1 based on this shall not be exempted from cancellation due to the registration of invalidity of cause, unless there is any proof that the registration is consistent with the substantive relationship, and the above registration of ownership transfer by Defendant 2 based on the above registration of ownership transfer by Defendant 1 shall not be exempted from cancellation as the registration of invalidity of cause.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified and the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Sick-man (Presiding Judge) Jink Tae-man