Plaintiff 1 and six others (Attorney Park Jae-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Land Trust Co., Ltd. and 22 others (Attorneys Jeong Jong-sik et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Intervenor 1 (Law Firm Jeong, Attorney Park Jong-chul, Counsel for the intervenor-appellant)

Intervenor 2

September 28, 2005

1. The Defendants shall comply with the registration procedure for cancellation of each of the following registrations, which was completed to the registration office of Suwon District Court, with respect to the Plaintiffs with respect to the land size of 856 square meters in Dongcheon-dong (number omitted) in Suwon-si.

(a) The shares of Defendants 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 are completed by the receipt No. 39620 on March 27, 2003; the shares of 232432, 43934592; the shares of 580692, 1493, 1493592, 1493, 1492, 1492, 1493, 93492, 93592, 93492, 1492, 1492, 1493, 1932, 1952, 10, 11394, 25396, 1294, 1395

B. Defendant 4 received on April 11, 2003: No. 4738 (1741824/1392) (17492/1392/1392) 47340 (1492/1392/1392), 47346 (2/13932/1394), 47347 (1934592/1394), 47348 (1293494/12), 47349 (1294/1394/1394/1397/1395 of equity), 47394539/1397 (24/13949/1394/1395 of equity), 473942549/1397/13945 of equity interest (1393945/13942) 475394547/13947/194547

C. The defendant 6 transferred the share of 1808160/1392, which was completed on April 11, 2003 by the defendant 47339/13.

D. Defendant 5: (a) on April 11, 2003, each transfer registration of shares was completed with No. 47341 (1647592/1392/1392), No. 4732 (95/1392/1392), No. 47343 (4/1394/1392), No. 4734 (4/1394/1392), No. 47344 (4/1392/1394/1392) and No. 47345/12 (129024/1392) of receipt on April 11, 2003

E. The defendant 3's transfer registration of shares 6701184/1392 delivered on May 24, 2003 as the receipt No. 68296, which was completed by the defendant 3

F. The registration of the transfer of shares in relation to the share 670184/1392, which was completed on May 24, 2003 by the recipient No. 68296, May 24, 2003

G. The registration of share transfer with respect to the share of 670184/1392, each completed by No. 114700 and No. 114701, Aug. 13, 2003

2. The claims of the first independent party intervenor and the second independent party intervenor are dismissed, respectively;

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and those incurred by the participation of the independent party concerned under Articles 1 and 2.

The main office is as set forth in the Disposition.

The first independent party participation: The 856 square meters of forest land and 856 square meters (from the next year, the real estate in this case is owned by the first independent party intervenor, etc.) shall be confirmed to be owned by the first independent party intervenor. The Defendants shall perform the procedure for cancellation registration of each registration in paragraph (1) of this Article against the first independent party intervenor.

2. Intervention by the Second Independent Party: It is confirmed that the instant real estate is owned by the participants of the Second Independent Party (Appointed Party) and the designated parties. The Defendants will perform the procedure for registration cancellation of each registration described in Paragraph 1 of this Article against the participants of the Second Independent Party (Appointed Party) and the designated parties.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or described in Gap evidence 1 through 8, 11, 12, Eul evidence 1 through 4, Byung evidence 1 through 21, 25, and 28 (including each additional number), and non-party 31's testimony, and there is no counter-proof.

A. The instant real estate was the land owned by the deceased, who was under the circumstances of the deceased non-party 3. When he died on August 5, 1939, his two deceased non-party 1 inherited it as the family heir, but Non-party 1 also died on April 6, 1943.

B. On March 22, 1899, Nonparty 1 adopted Nonparty 3’s adopted child on August 15, 1916 after he was married with Nonparty 2’s vehicle, but only Nonparty 4 was under the chain and did not have any other descendants. Nonparty 1’s wife died on July 10, 1938, before Nonparty 1 died, and Nonparty 4 died at the same time or around 1951 at the same time as his wife’s unmarried status (as in the family registry, Nonparty 31 testified that Nonparty 3 died on October 195), but due to his failure to be the adopted child, Nonparty 1’s wife died on July 10, 193, before Nonparty 1 died, and Nonparty 4 died at the same time or around 1951 (as in the family registry, Nonparty 4 died on July 10, 1938).

C. At the time of Nonparty 1’s death, Nonparty 3 was deceased on November 25, 1967, Nonparty 11 (the head of the son), Nonparty 3 (the head of the son), Nonparty 12 (the son), Nonparty 3 (the son), Nonparty 13 (the son), Nonparty 13 (the son), Nonparty 14 (the son), and Nonparty 15 (the son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s son’s 197.15 (the son’s son), and 197.15).16.

D. At the time of Nonparty 1’s death, Nonparty 19 (2 South), Nonparty 20 (2), Nonparty 21 (2), Nonparty 22 (3), Nonparty 23 (4), and Nonparty 24 (5) were born at the time of Nonparty 1’s death, Nonparty 1’s death on August 10, 1949, and Nonparty 26 transferred his/her property as the head of the family, but died on August 20, 1950.

E. At the time of the death of Nonparty 26, the bereaved family was deceased, and the deceased Nonparty 27 (the wife of Nonparty 18) and the deceased Nonparty 18 (the wife of Nonparty 18), but was not selected by the adopted child, and the deceased Nonparty 27 was cut back to the deceased 26, and Nonparty 27 died on July 2, 1975, and his children (the births of Nonparty 18), who were his children (the births of Nonparty 18), became co-inheritors of the property. Nonparty 30 died on April 29, 195, and Nonparty 4,5, and6, who were his wife’s wife and children, were married between Nonparty 2 and the Intervenor on March 29, 195, and Nonparty 1 and his heir on September 23, 195 (the Intervenor’s independent and independent heir on September 193, 195).

F. Defendant 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, and 23 (hereinafter “Defendant 7 and 17”) all of the non-party 27’s relatives, who were the relatives of the non-party 27, was the head of the non-party 27, the head of the ship, the head of the ship, and the head of the non-party 27, who was the relatives of the real estate of this case. On March 27, 2003, the non-party 7 and the non-party 17, including the defendant 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and the land trust of Korea (hereinafter “the non-party 4 and the non-party 5”). Based on the above, the registration of ownership transfer was completed as described in the Disposition 2-A.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs

The real estate of this case, which was owned by Nonparty 1 due to Nonparty 1’s death (A) and the family head’s death, shall be succeeded in succession by Nonparty 17, who was his birth family, Nonparty 18, and Nonparty 26, who was the head of Nonparty 18 and Nonparty 18, who was his birth family. The plaintiffs, who were his births and the bereaved family members of Nonparty 26, jointly succeeded to the real estate. Defendant 7 and Nonparty 17, referred to as the above, they succeeded to the real estate of this case, and based on this, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed. Based on this, each of the above registrations must be cancelled as a registration invalidation.

B. The Defendants

The Plaintiffs do not have the right to seek cancellation of each of the above registrations, since they are not the successors of the instant real estate.

(c) Intervenor of the first independent party;

Since the real estate of this case is the property of the quantity inherited by Nonparty 1 from Nonparty 3 as both sides (maternal family), if Nonparty 1 died and was cut off, it shall be deemed that the most recent relative on both sides (maternal family) is inherited by Nonparty 5, and since Nonparty 5 died to the death of Nonparty 5, the first independent party intervenor, etc. jointly inherited it, the plaintiff and the defendant sought confirmation on whether the real estate of this case owned by the first independent party, etc., and sought cancellation of each of the above registrations against the defendants.

(d) Intervenor of the second independent party;

As alleged by the Plaintiffs, the instant real estate was inherited by Nonparty 26, but Nonparty 18, his wife due to the death of Nonparty 26, succeeded to the instant real estate by Nonparty 18, and succeeded to the instant real estate jointly by the Intervenor of the Second Independent Party (Appointed Party) and the designated parties due to the death of Nonparty 18, and thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant sought confirmation of the joint ownership by the Intervenor of the Second Independent Party (Appointed Party) and the designated parties, and sought cancellation of each of the above registrations against the Defendants.

3. Determination

A. Death of Nonparty 1 and ownership of the instant real estate

According to the former customs before the enforcement of the new Civil Code, in cases where a male of the married family of the head of the family dies without a male to inherit the head of the family, until the adopted child is selected, the right and property of the deceased who was inherited to the head of the family shall be succeeded to the ex post facto adopted child if the adopted child was selected after temporary inheritance in the order of respect expenses, until the adopted child is selected, and even if the adopted child was deceased or left after temporary inheritance of the head of the family without being selected by the adopted child, if the adopted child was selected within a reasonable period from the date of the death or the birth of the adopted child, the adopted child will succeed to the right and property of the head of the family, but if the adopted child was not selected within the period of time from the date of the death or the birth of the adopted child, that child would be terminated, and if the adopted child was not selected within the period of time from the date of the post adoption, his family shall belong to the family, and his relative shall belong to the deceased, and if not, his relative shall belong to the last child; 196.4.7.194.5.4.7.54.

However, the purport of devolving the miscarriage of a family (A) upon the birth of the head of the family is not for the succession of family, but for the purpose of arranging it to the former head of the family and the relatives near the status of the former head of the family who have no person to succeed to the family (see Supreme Court Decision 90Da17729, May 24, 191, etc.). Therefore, the relationship between the former head of the family and his/her birth family with the former head of the family is not divided into adoption. Thus, if the head of the family who died and his/her adoption was cut to the latter head of the family, his/her miscarriage belongs to the relatives near the former head of the family (including his/her birth family) even if he/she succeeds to the status of the former head of the family, and the relationship between the former head of the family and his/her birth family does not belong to the entire relatives (including his/her birth family).

In this case, as recognized earlier, there was no male to inherit the head of family at the time of the death of Nonparty 1, his wife had already died, and the existence of Nonparty 4, who is his father, was not clear, but was already dead at the time, and even if Nonparty 1’s miscarriage was temporarily inherited until October 1951, as long as Nonparty 1 died before the enforcement of the new Civil Act without being selected by the ex post facto adopted, so long as Nonparty 1’s deceased before the enforcement of the new Civil Act and became extinct, Nonparty 1’s miscarriage was reverted to his father’s surviving father. However, at the time, Nonparty 1’s recent father-child was the five children between Nonparty 3 and the fourth degree. Nonparty 17, who was his father-child, and Nonparty 17, who was his father-child, was the birth of Nonparty 17 and Nonparty 17, who was his father-child, was the equal share of Nonparty 17, who was his father-child and Nonparty 17, who was the deceased.

B. Death of Nonparty 26 and ownership shares of the instant real estate

As acknowledged earlier, Nonparty 26 did not have descendants at the time of death, Nonparty 27, his wife, and Nonparty 18, his wife, who was the bereaved family. Since Nonparty 27 did not have been designated as the adopted child, it is deemed that Nonparty 27, who was the mother, was the head of the family and the property of Nonparty 26, became the head of the family and the property of Nonparty 26. However, Nonparty 27 died on July 2, 1975, which was after the enforcement of the new Civil Act without designating the adopted child, after the enforcement of the new Civil Act. In the event that the mother, who was the head of family and the inheritance of the deceased after the enforcement of the new Civil Act, died after the enforcement of the new Civil Act, the new Civil Act shall apply (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da7955, May 22, 1992; Supreme Court Decision 92Da7957, May 27, 199). Nonparty 26, the inheritance of the Plaintiff’s wife and Nonparty 265, the inheritance of the Plaintiff 26.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Defendant 7 and Defendant 17 and the registration of transfer of each share in the name of Defendant 4 and Defendant 5 based on the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Defendant 1-A under the premise that Nonparty 27’s friendships succeeded to the instant real estate. Thus, the Defendants are obligated to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of each of the above registrations against the Plaintiffs who seek cancellation of each of the above registrations based on preservation act as a part of the right holders of the instant real estate. Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the first independent party intervenor and the second independent party intervenor did not succeed to the instant real estate ownership or share, and thus, each of the aforementioned independent party intervenors’ claims based on the premise that they succeeded to the ownership or share of the instant real estate are without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs' claims of this case are accepted, and all of the claims of this case by the first independent party intervenor and the second independent party intervenor are dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment List of Appointed]

Judges Kim Chang-chul