Plaintiff (Law Firm Uniform, Attorneys Shin Hong-sik et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea

August 10, 2005

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership preservation completed on October 26, 1995 with respect to each of the registration of preservation of ownership and 340 square meters on the real estate completed on September 5, 1986 with respect to the real estate of 90 m2,694 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000,000 m2,000,000,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000 m2,000,000,000 m2,000,000 m2,00

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The real estate in this case, among the real estate in this case, was under the circumstances of the non-party 7 who resides in the Gyeongdong-dong (Seongdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong 90 m2, 694 m2, 91 m2, 308 m2, 300 m2, 308-2, 340 m2 (hereinafter referred to as the "real estate in this case"), and among the real estate in this case, the registration of ownership was completed on September 5, 1986 on September 5, 1986 with the 90 m2, 308-2, 340 m2, 340 m2,000 m2,000 in the name of the defendant on October 26, 1995.

B. Nonparty 7, the Plaintiff’s main domicile of the Simndong, Gyeonggi-do (Seoul-do), the domicile of which was the Plaintiff’s Republic of Korea, had three females South and North Korea, including Nonparty 1, Nonparty 5, Nonparty 3, and Nonparty 6. Nonparty 1, the Republic of Korea, married with Nonparty 8 and died on March 4, 1925; Nonparty 7, the children of Nonparty 5, on April 8, 1925, was the adoption of Nonparty 1, and Nonparty 2, who was appointed as the ex post facto supporter, died on March 2, 1930, and was succeeded to the inheritance and property of Australia by Nonparty 7.

C. However, Nonparty 2 died on January 14, 1951 due to unmarried Nonparty 2’s death, and Nonparty 1’s mother at the time of Nonparty 2’s death and Nonparty 8, his wife, all of whom were deceased, were only Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 4, who was the deceased Nonparty 1’s mother within the same family register.

[Evidence] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, and 7, Gap evidence No. 6, Gap evidence No. 8-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The non-party 2, as a family heir, died of the non-party 1 on January 14, 1951 after the inheritance of the real estate in this case as the family head's heir and died of the non-party 2's unmarried status on January 14, 1951, and thus, the non-party 2's relative non-party 5 succeeded to the real estate in this case. The non-party 5 also succeeded to the real estate jointly by the non-party 6, who is the non-party 5's collateral blood relatives, as the non-party 5 died on February 23, 1979. The non-party 6 succeeded to the share of the business interference among the real estate in this case as the non-party 6's lineal descendant, including the plaintiff, as the non-party 6 died on July 26, 190, the plaintiff, one of the co-owners of the real estate in this case, seeking the cancellation of the registration

(b) Markets:

According to the custom prior to the enforcement of the Civil Act, when the head of family dies and his/her male has succeeded to the family sovereignty and property right, but if there is no other male, he/she shall not include it in the household, so that he/she may succeed to the family sovereignty and property right by determining the ex post facto fosterer of the deceased mony, and until the adoption of the two, he/she shall succeed to the family sovereignty and property right in the order of the father, mother, mother, and wife. On the other hand, in cases where there are only two married family members of the old son's old son, he/she shall succeed to the family and the inheritance of the deceased son until the son is selected for the father of the old son (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 29, Apr. 439, 452, 290).

On January 14, 1951, 1951, Non-party 2, who is a health unit and family heir, died of Non-party 3 and Non-party 4 within the same family register at that time, as seen earlier. As such, Non-party 2 died, which is a woman of Non-party 1, until Non-party 1 was appointed after the death of Non-party 2, the non-party 3 inherited family and inherited property, and the non-party 5, who is a father of non-party 2, cannot inherit property. Accordingly, the plaintiff is not the heir of Non-party 7.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the plaintiff is the inheritor of the non-party 7's property is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Byunception