Plaintiff (Law Firm White, Attorneys Lee Gyeong-sung et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and four others

October 10, 2007

1. Each inheritance share listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff (Appointed), 2, 3, 4, and 5;

A. Of the forest land of 3,570 square meters in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Dongwon-si (hereinafter 1 omitted), Defendant 2 with respect to the share of 3/9; Defendant 3, 4, and 5 with respect to the share of 2/9 shares, the registration of transfer of ownership completed under No. 10811 on June 13, 1981 with respect to the share of 2/9 shares in Suwon District Court;

B. Defendant 1: (a) the registration of transfer of ownership as to the above forest land was completed on February 9, 1985 by the same registry office No. 2851;

Each cancellation registration procedure shall be implemented.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of preservation was completed in the name of Nonparty 4 as of May 12, 1953 with respect to the area of 3,570 square meters of woodland 3,570 square meters (hereinafter the forest of this case is the forest of this case) in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Dongwon-si (hereinafter the forest of this case is omitted), under the name of Nonparty 4, the registration of preservation was completed on May 12, 1953. In accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 197; Act No. 10811, Jun. 13, 1981; hereinafter the same is the special measures of this case) under the name of Nonparty 6 as of June 13, 1981, which was received on February 6, 1985.

B. On August 21, 1967, Nonparty 4 died of Nonparty 8 and Nonparty 1, 9, 10, 11, the wife of Nonparty 8 and Nonparty 1, 1, her children. On August 3, 1992, Nonparty 8 also succeeded to the shares of inheritance again by four children. On April 27, 200, Nonparty 1 died of Nonparty 2, 3, 4, and 5, who were the wife of Nonparty 4 as the bereaved family members (designated parties, hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties, the wife of Nonparty 2, 3, 4, and 5, who were the same designated parties.

C. Nonparty 6 died with Defendant 2, the wife on April 23, 1995, and Defendant 3, 4, and 5, who was a food offender, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 6 evidence, Gap 7-1, 2, Gap 8-1 through 4, Gap 9-1 through 7, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The assertion

The plaintiff, after the non-party 5, who was the father of the defendant 1, died of the non-party 4, who was the non-party 6's inheritor, obtained the consent from the non-party 6 and the non-party 1, who was the non-party 6's heir to install the tombstones of his parents on the forest of this case, and tried to transfer the ownership of the forest of this case without permission, but it is confirmed that his address is far away from the location of the forest of this case and it is impossible to complete the registration of ownership transfer in the future. The plaintiff's own and the non-party 6, who was living in the village of this case, requested the non-party 6 to lend the name of the plaintiff 4 and the non-party 6, who was the non-party 6, to cancel the registration of ownership transfer. The plaintiff and the non-party 6, who was the non-party 6's heir's heir's ownership transfer, made the registration of ownership transfer under the non-party 6's name and completed the registration of ownership transfer.

B. Determination

(1) Since the registration completed based on the Act on the Special Measures in this case is presumed to be a registration that conforms to the substantive legal relationship, a party seeking the reversal of such presumption must assert and prove that the guarantee certificate or confirmation certificate under the above Act, which forms the basis of the registration, was prepared in a false manner or forged, or was not duly registered for other reasons. The degree of proof to reverse the presumption of registration is sufficient if it is proven to the extent that the substantial contents of the guarantee certificate or confirmation certificate, which forms the basis of the registration, are not true (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da60549 delivered on March 26, 2004).

(2) According to the evidence Nos. 4 and 5 (a written confirmation and a certificate of personal seal impression, Defendant 1’s defense that this document was forged by someone else, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it), Gap evidence Nos. 10-1 and 2, and Gap evidence Nos. 10-11, and defendant 2’s results of the examination and the whole purport of oral argument, the following facts are recognized, and each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 against them is not believed.

① On December 194, 1994, 4 months prior to the death of Nonparty 6, Nonparty 6: (a) prepared a written confirmation to the effect that “I had no purchase of forest land of this case, and I had lent his name to the Plaintiff, etc. so that Defendant 1 may transfer his ownership; (b) issued a certificate of personal seal impression attached thereto.”

② Although Defendant 2, 3, 4, and Defendant 5, who are Nonparty 6’s inheritors, were served with both copies of the instant complaint on April 23, 2007 through April 25, 2007, they did not submit any written statement disputing the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the forest of this case as to the developments leading up to the completion of ownership transfer registration in the future in Nonparty 6, and only Defendant 4 asserted that Defendant 1 and the said confirmation document and the certificate of personal seal impression were forged on the date for pleading 2 and 3 times in this case.

③ Defendant 2 stated that in the personal examination procedure conducted on September 12, 19 of the same year, the husband of the instant forest had completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 6, the husband of the instant forest, as well as that he was able to purchase the instant forest by his husband at that time.

④ Nonparty 6: (a) was unable to live in the North Korean Peninsula; (b) was to live in the Republic of Korea, with his family members around 1970; and (c) was to move in the west-si, the forest of this case, the location of the forest of this case; and (d) was to move out of the land borrowed from Nonparty 5, the external village of which was located; and (e) was to live in the Republic of Korea.

⑤ The registration of ownership transfer was completed in order in the order of Nonparty 12, the mother of the Defendant 3 and Defendant 2, who was located next to the domicile of Defendant 3, 2, the head of the Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter omitted 2 omitted) and 453 square meters, based on the instant special measures. Nonparty 3 and Defendant 1, the mother of Defendant 1, had received the registration of ownership transfer in order. Nonparty 6 and Defendant 2 received the rent of the above land from Nonparty 13 every year from the rent of the above land, and delivered it to Nonparty 1 and 2.

The above written confirmation (Evidence A 5) is prepared by Nonparty 6 before his death, and its credibility is high, and it is recognized that himself is not the owner of the forest of this case. In addition, in light of the above circumstances, even from the completion of the preservation registration on the forest of this case to the completion of the ownership transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 6, it seems that he did not have sufficient means to purchase the forest of this case. In full view of these circumstances, the registration on the transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty 6 on the forest of this case was completed without any cause, and its presumption power has been destroyed as the registration on the invalidation of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty 6 on the forest of this case. Accordingly, the registration on the transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant 1, which was followed, shall also be null and void.

(3) Meanwhile, upon Nonparty 4’s death, Nonparty 8 inherited Nonparty 6/11 shares, Nonparty 1 shares, Nonparty 9, 10, and 11 shares, respectively. Nonparty 1 inherited 1/22 shares, respectively, due to Nonparty 8’s death, Nonparty 1 inherited 1/22 shares, respectively. Nonparty 1 owns 3/22 (1/22 +222) shares, the remaining 3/22 (1/222) shares, and the remaining 3 others inherited 39/242 (13/23/111) shares, and the remaining 26/242 (13/2/22) shares, respectively, due to Nonparty 1’s death.

(4) Therefore, according to the inheritance shares listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff and the remaining designated parties, Defendant 2, the inheritor of Nonparty 6 among the instant forest, is obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed as of June 13, 1981 with respect to the shares of 3/9; Defendant 3, 4, and 5 with respect to shares of 2/9; Defendant 3, 4, and 5, respectively, with respect to the shares of 2/9 shares; Defendant 1 is obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed as of February 9, 1985 with respect to the said forest.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kang Jong-ok

(1) Nonparty 8 is the wife, and Nonparty 1 is the householder, and Nonparty 5, Nonparty 9, 10, and 11 as the householder, respectively, inherit 0.25 as a married female.