Whether the provisions of Article 10 of the Civil Code shall apply or not to any change in the real right due to any circumstances under the Forestry Investigation Ordinance or inheritance.

The acquisition of ownership of forest by reason of the circumstances under the Presidential Decree on the Investigation of Forest Land or inheritance is not a change in a real right due to a juristic act, and it is not subject to Article 10 of the Civil Code.

Article 10 of Addenda to the Civil Act

November 30, 1965, 64Da1508 decided Nov. 30, 1965 (Supreme Court Decision 1584 decided Nov. 15, 196; Supreme Court Decision 13 ②B citizen 245 decided Dec. 13, 196; Decision No. 8(1)1727 decided

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and four others

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (73Gahap405)

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendants.

For the plaintiff:

Defendant 1, on November 23, 1972, with respect to the real estate listed in the Attachment Nos. 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 12, and 13, he shall perform the procedure of registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on October 1972, 2796 of receipt of the Gwangju District Court of Gwangju on November 23, 1972, for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on September 9, 197, and for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on the real estate listed in the Attachment No. 1, No. 14317 of receipt of the above court on May 4, 1971, and for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on the ground of sale on May 3, 1971; Defendant 2 shall perform the procedure of registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on the real estate listed in the Attachment No. 1, No. 25380 on October 27, 1972, and Defendant 3 shall perform the procedure of registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on the real estate for reasons stated in the Attachment No. 136. 1, 197.

Defendant 4, upon receipt of the above court on November 23, 1972, followed the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership as to the portion of 10 minutes due to the sale and purchase of shares on November 14, 1972, and Defendant 5 followed the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership as to the portion of 10 minutes due to the sale and purchase of shares on November 14, 1972, and Defendant 5 followed the procedure for the cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership as to the portion of 10 minutes due to the sale and purchase of shares on July 15, 1970.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendants.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

As to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate"), the ownership transfer registration of the deceased non-party 1 to the non-party 5, the ownership transfer registration of the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 5, the ownership transfer registration of the non-party 2 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 5, the ownership transfer registration of the non-party 1 to the non-party 2 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 5, the ownership transfer registration of the non-party 1 to the non-party 5 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 5, the ownership transfer registration of the non-party 2 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 5, the ownership transfer registration of the non-party 3 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 5, the ownership transfer registration of the non-party 1 to the non-party 1 to the non-party 5.

However, as it is an official document, Gap evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 5-1 through 7, 9 through 35, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 13, 18, 20, and 21 which are recognized as being true, are considered as being the whole purport of the parties' pleadings. This real estate was owned by the Dong ruling No. 10 on Sep. 10, 1921, but the plaintiff died on Nov. 10, 1924, and the plaintiff's inheritance and the real estate was recorded on Sep. 29, 1927. According to the above facts that the non-party No. 1 was recorded on the 9-1, 6, 9 and the above facts that the non-party No. 2 had no dispute over its establishment were recorded on the 19-party No. 1's original father and the non-party No. 2 were recorded on the 9-party No. 1's ownership register and the non-party No. 1's. 27.

First, even if there is a defect in the above domestic disposition, the defendant et al.'s attorney shall raise an objection within six months. However, the registration of preservation of ownership of the above real estate was based on the circumstance of September 1, 1921, not on the ground of the ruling. Thus, the above defense is groundless, or even if the ground for registration of preservation of ownership of the above real estate was considered to be the above ruling of September 27, 1927, since the above ruling is invalid, the above defense is groundless. Second, according to Article 10 of the Rule of the Civil Act, the acquisition and loss of real right is no longer effective unless it is registered within 6 years after the enforcement of the same Act, because the plaintiff's above domestic real estate was owned by the plaintiff, but it was not registered yet, and thus, it cannot be asserted that the plaintiff acquired the above real estate for 10 years since it did not constitute a change in ownership due to the plaintiff's acquisition of the above real estate by the non-party 1, 197.

Therefore, as seen earlier, the registration of preservation of ownership consisting of ten persons, including Nonparty 1 and 10, etc., on the real estate held by Nonparty 5 and 10, or on the ground that the judgment was rendered on September 1, 1921, or on September 27, 1927, is null and void. Therefore, each registration of preservation of ownership and provisional registration on the part of the defendant's title shall be null and void. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the procedure for registration of cancellation shall be accepted on the ground that the plaintiff's appeal is just and without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the first instance as to this conclusion is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Noh Byung-man (Presiding Judge)