Whether a co-inheritors may cancel the agreement of the source of ownership on the ground of an error by misunderstanding the co-inheritors as a sole inheritor (negative)

In case where an agreement was reached between the title holder Gap and the heir of the former owner who asserts the invalidity of the cause of the ownership transfer registration by restoring the ownership of land to Eul, and where the agreement was reached between Eul and Eul to complete the ownership transfer registration, if one of co-inheritors exists, it shall be deemed that Eul may independently seek the cancellation of the invalidation of the cause of the jointly owned property, or enter into an agreement on the registration of the ownership transfer, as an act of preserving the jointly owned property, as an act of preserving the jointly owned property, and thus, even if Gap believed Eul as a sole heir and agreed on the ownership transfer registration of Eul, such mistake shall not be

Article 109 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 94Da11217 delivered on September 30, 1994 (Gong1994Ha, 2841 delivered on September 28, 201)

Kim Jin (Attorney Park Jong-jin, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

A purification project (Attorney Han-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Supreme Court Decision 93Da2476 delivered on May 27, 1993

Supreme Court Decision 94Da11217 delivered on September 30, 1994

Gwangju District Court Decision 94Na8101 delivered on July 6, 1995

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s attorney’s ground of appeal is examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

Upon examining the evidence admitted by the court below in light of the records, the court below is just in finding that the defendant is one of the co-inheritors of the deceased M&C, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The argument is without merit.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the records, the fact-finding by the court below to the effect that the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have caused any error as to the status of the defendant who is an inheritor at the time of the agreement with the defendant at the time of the agreement with the defendant, and that if one of the co-inheritors of the above deceased is a co-inheritors, the defendant can independently seek the cancellation of the registration of the invalidity of the cause for the jointly-owned property or enter into an agreement on the registration of the transfer of ownership, as an act of preserving the jointly-owned property, and therefore, even if the plaintiff believed the defendant as a sole heir of the above deceased and agreed on the above agreement, such mistake does not constitute an important part of the content of the above agreement. Therefore, it is just to reject the plaintiff's defense by mistake, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise

3. On the third ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in comparison with the records, it is unlawful that the court below rejected the judgment on the ground that the plaintiff's act of deception by the defendant led to the remaining agreement that believed the defendant to be a legitimate inheritance right holder, and the plaintiff submitted the argument that the above agreement was revoked on the ground of the above mistake as a selective assertion to revoke the declaration of intent for the above mistake. However, as the court below duly admitted, if the defendant is a legitimate inheritance right holder of the above deceased and the plaintiff did not cause any mistake as to the status of the defendant, it cannot be viewed that the above agreement constitutes a declaration of intent by deception without any need to further examine the existence of deception by the defendant. Therefore, the above illegality of the court below does not affect the conclusion of the judgment of this case. Therefore, it is not acceptable to accept the argument on this point.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)