2015Da61972 Cancellation of registration of equity transfer.

The person who received the lawsuit from the deceased A

1. 0

2. P;

3. Q.

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al.

Attorney Kim Jong-su, Justice Kim Jong-young, Justice Kim Jong-young

1. B

2. C.

3. D;

4. E.

[Judgment of the court below]

[Judgment of the court below]

Changwon District Court Decision 2014Na12250 Decided September 9, 2015

January 25, 2018

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Changwon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

After compiling the adopted evidence, the lower court recognized the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that the netJ may be deemed to have held the title trust of 1/4 shares out of each of the instant land by inheritance of each of the instant land from Chobu F and father G.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the presumption of title trust and registration.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

The court below, after compiling the adopted evidence, found the facts as stated in its reasoning, and found the facts as stated in its reasoning. The court below rejected the defendants' defense of extinctive prescription that the deceased Gap's claim to cancel the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer against the defendants, who are the deceased Gap's successors, has expired on July 1, 1996, since the ownership transfer registration under the name of the deceased J with respect to 1/4 shares out of each land of this case conducted under the title trust agreement, shall be cancelled as a cause invalidation after July 1, 1996, since the grace period under Articles 4, 11, and 12 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name has expired.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal doctrine and the record, the lower court did not err in its judgment that rejected the Defendants’ defense of extinctive prescription by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In calculating the Defendants’ shares in inheritance, the lower court recognized the fact that Defendant B, Defendant C, D, and E was born on March 4, 2003 by the deceased on March 4, 2003, and that Defendant B, his wife, Defendant C, D, and E were succeeded to one-fourth shares of each of the instant real estate owned by the deceased J based on this fact.

However, according to the records, according to the inquiry inquiry reply to the head of the Geum-gu Busan Metropolitan City Y Center, which was submitted as fact-finding data that served as the basis for calculating the Defendants’ shares of inheritance against the network J, Defendant B as the wife of the network J, and Defendant C, D, and E were born between the network J and Defendant B.

However, according to each of the various copies attached to the Reasons for Appeal and family relation certificates, R. S (T. prior to the name of the name) can be known as a child born between the deceased J and the Defendant B.

Although the lower court should have known the inheritance relationship of the deceased J by demanding the Defendants to submit a family relation certificate, it calculated the Defendants’ share of inheritance without doing so. The lower court should have erred by misapprehending the facts concerning the calculation of inheritance share due to the failure to exercise of the right to name and the failure to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and the ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit, since it is obvious that this affected the conclusion of the judgment.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Supreme Court Decision 200

Justices Go Young-young

Chief Justice Kim Jong-il

Justices Cho Jae-chul