A. The nature of the lawsuit seeking cancellation of the registration against a person who has completed the registration of ownership preservation on the ground of inheritance from a person other than the original owner’s heir, by asserting that the Plaintiff is a true co-inheritors who is the original owner (=the lawsuit claiming restitution of inheritance)

(b) the starting point of the limitation period for inheritance recovery claims in cases where there are several successions.

C. Period of exclusion of the right to recover inheritance under the customary law prior to the enforcement of the Civil Act

A. In a case where the plaintiff asserted that he is a true co-inheritors of the original owner and filed a registration of preservation of ownership pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for Restoration, Registration, and Registration of Restoration of Undeveloped Land within several regions by inheritance from a person who is not the heir of the original owner, or a person who filed a registration of ownership transfer from him claims cancellation of the registration of real estate which is the inherited property, if he/she claims that the specific decentralization belongs to the inheritance, the lawsuit shall be considered as the lawsuit

B. If there were several inheritances, the starting point of the limitation period for inheritance recovery claims is the time when the first inheritance commences.

C. Prior to the enforcement of the current Civil Code, a claim for recovery of inheritance under the customary law ceases to exist six years after the heir or his legal representative becomes aware of the infringement of the inheritance right, or twenty years after the commencement of the inheritance.

Article 999 of the Civil Act

1.

Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da5740 Decided December 24, 1991 (No. 392Gong1992, 635), 92Da2923 Decided September 1, 1992 (Gong1992, 2762), 92Da11046 Decided October 9, 1992 (Gong192, 3108)

3.

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and one other

Chuncheon District Court Decision 91Na171 delivered on September 6, 1991

1. The judgment of the court below is revoked.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs in both the first and second instances.

The judgment of the court below shall be revoked.

As to the real estate located in the attached list to the plaintiffs, the defendant 1 (1) made on April 22, 1985 by the High Court of Chuncheon as the registration office of 4823 on April 22, 1985, and (2) the defendant 2 performed the procedure for registration of cancellation of transfer steam granted on July 18, 1986 as the receipt of No. 7599 on July 18, 1986, and confirmed that the above real estate is jointly owned by the plaintiffs according to the ratio stated in

별지목록 기재 부동산(이하 이 사건 부동산이라 한다)은 원래 원고들의 증조부이자 피고 1의 백조부인 망 소외 1의 소유이었던 사실 및 피고 1이 이 사건 부동산에 관하여 춘천지방법원 고성등기소 1985.4.22. 접수 제4823호로 수복지역내 소유자미복구토지의복구등록과보존등기등에관한특별조치볍(법률 제3627호)에 의하여 소유권보존등기를 마치고 그 후 피고 2가 이에 터잡아 같은 등기소 1986.7.18. 접수 제7599호로 소유권이전등기를 마친 사실에 관하여는 당사자 사이에 다툼이 없고, 성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제5호증의 1(제적등본),2(호적등본), 갑 제13호증의 2(보증서), 갑 제20호증(호적등본)의 각 기재와 당원의 고성군수에 대한 사실조회결과에 변론의 전취지를 보태어 보면 소외 1은 1935.12.12. 사망하였고 그의 상속인으로는 장남으로서 호주상속인인 망 소외 2가 있었으며, 소외 2 또한 1965.3.12. 사망하였고 그의 상속인으로는 그의 처인 망 소외 3, 장남으로서 호주상속인인 망 소외 4, 차남인 망 소외 5, 동일가적내의 딸들인 망 소외 6, 7이 있었으며, 소외 4는 1969.11.27. 사먕하였고 그의 상속인으로는 장남으로서 호주상속인인 원고 1, 동일가적 내의 딸인 원고 2가 있으며, 소외 3, 5, 6, 7은 모두 1991.8.16. 춘천지방법원 속초지원에서 1965.5.1. 실종기간만료로 실종선고를 받았으며 그들의 상속인으로는 손자 내지 조카로서 원고들이 있는 사실, 한편 피고 1은 이 사건 부동산을 자신의 부친이자 소외 1의 차남인 망 소외 8로부터 상속받은 바 없음에도 불구하고 자신이 1950.4.4. 위 부동산을 소외 8로부터 상속받아 사실상 소유하고 있다는 내용의 허위보증서를 발급받아 이에 기하여 앞서 본 바와 같은 위 피고 명의의 소유권보존등기를 경료한 사실을 인정할 수 있고 이에 반하는 제9호증의 1(확인서)의 기재와 증인 박밀성의 증언은 믿기 어렵고 달리 반증없는 바, 위 인정사실에 의하면 원고 1, 2가 이 사건 부동산을 공동으로 상속받아 지분계산표 기재와 같이 각 19/32, 13/32의 비율로 공유하고 있다고 할 것이다.

The plaintiffs' claim of this case is that the plaintiffs jointly inherited the real estate as above, and the defendant 1 completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the ground of inheritance in their own name and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground that the defendant 2 completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground that the above real estate was owned by the plaintiffs. Accordingly, it is argued that the right of ownership on the real estate of this case was reverted to the plaintiffs on the ground of inheritance, and the defendant 1 and the third party who acquired the ownership from the defendant 2, who is the title successor who infringed on the plaintiffs' inheritance right, sought the cancellation of the registration on the inherited property, and thus,

Meanwhile, in the case of multiple inheritances, the starting point of the exclusion period of the claim for recovery of inheritance shall be the time when the first inheritance commences. Thus, before the enforcement of the current Civil Code, whether the exclusion period is excessive as of December 12, 1935, when the non-party 2 succeeded to the non-party 1's property, the claim for recovery of inheritance shall be deemed extinguished after the lapse of 6 years from the time when the inheritor or his legal representative becomes aware of the infringement of the right to inheritance, or 20 years from the time when the inheritance begins, and even if the infringement of the right to inheritance occurred after the commencement of inheritance, the claim for recovery of inheritance shall be extinguished due to the lapse of the exclusion period from the time when the inheritance commenced.

However, since December 12, 1935 on which the first inheritance commenced, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case was filed on January 16, 1991 after 20 years from the expiration of the exclusion period. Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is inappropriate.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and since the judgment of the court below is unfair with different conclusions, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 96, 89, and 93 of the Civil Procedure Act to the burden of litigation costs (attached Form omitted).

Judge Han-soo (Presiding Judge)