2016da 17905 Registration of transfer of ownership

A

1. B

2. C

3. D;

4. E.

5. F;

January 17, 2017

2017.31

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Of the land listed in the separate sheet, Defendant B, and C will implement each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of each real name with respect to one fourth share of each of Defendant D, E, and F with respect to each of the land listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The G land in Jeollabuk-gun, Jeollabuk-do (hereinafter referred to as the "G land in this case") was respectively transferred to the 4,040 square meters prior to H as the substituted land under the Farmland Improvement Act on March 3, 1971 and on July 21, 1973 (attached Form 1; hereinafter referred to as the "H land in this case") and the 886 square meters prior to I.D. (attached Table 2; hereinafter referred to as the "I land in this case").

B. The land JJ (hereinafter referred to as the “J land of this case”) in Donju-gun, Jeollabuk-do was also transferred to the land of this case on March 3, 1971, and the land improvement report was made on March 21, 1973, as a substitute lot under the Farmland Improvement Act on July 21, 1980 (the land listed in the attached Table No. 3; hereinafter referred to as the “K land”).

C. On July 20, 1918, both J land and G land of this case were assessed against Nonparty L, who is the Plaintiff’s increased father on July 20, 1918, and the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the future of Nonparty M, who was the Plaintiff’s father on March 12, 1965, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the future of the Plaintiff on the same day.

D. (1) On March 13, 1970, Nonparty N Co., Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Nonparty M and Plaintiff with respect to the instant G land (the Plaintiff’s cancellation of ownership transfer registration, and the Nonparty Co., Ltd.’s lawsuit seeking registration of ownership transfer due to the termination of the trust duty as of January 5, 1948). Upon the judgment became final and conclusive, the registration of ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name was cancelled, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 13, 1970 on May 13, 1970.

(2) Since then, the instant G land was divided into the instant H land and the I land on July 31, 1981 due to the sale on March 23, 1973, and the ownership transfer registration was made in the name of Nonparty O, Defendant D, Defendant E, and Defendant F on July 31, 1981 (each share of 1/4), and among them, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of Defendant B and Defendant C on June 9, 2003 due to the inheritance by the division as of April 26, 2003 (each share of 1/8);

E. (1) The J land of this case, like the above G land, was filed by the non-party clan against the non-party M and the plaintiff, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the non-party clan. Since the above J land was improved into the K land of this case, it was substituted in the name of the non-party on July 21, 1980. Since the old register (Registration No. 12349) of the above J land was transferred to the closed register (Registration No. 26498) of the land of this case on July 21, 1980, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the future of the non-party clan as of March 12, 1965.

(2) After July 31, 1981, on the ground of the sale as of March 23, 1973, the K land of this case was registered for transfer of ownership in the name of Nonparty O, Defendant D, Defendant E, and Defendant F on the ground of the sale as of March 23, 1973 (each one-fourth share), and as to the non-partyO’s share 1/4, the transfer of ownership was completed in June 9, 2003 due to the inheritance by a consultation division as of April 26, 2003 (each 1/8 share);

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 14, Eul evidence No. 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's claim and judgment

A. Determination as to the claim against H land of this case and I

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s claim

The non-partyO is the son of the mountainous district in which the land of this case was managed and did not have the right to request the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration for the said G land at the time. Meanwhile, since the non-party clan does not have any substance, the registration of ownership transfer in the above clan is null and void. The defendants also completed the registration of ownership transfer for the H land of this case and the I land because the registration of invalidity of the above cause is based on the registration of invalidity of the above cause, so the above registration is null and void. Accordingly, the defendants are obligated to implement each registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the restoration of the real name for each of the above land

(2) Determination

Therefore, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the non-party O did not have the right to request the cancellation of ownership transfer registration as above, and that the non-party O was a clan that does not have any substance of the non-party 1, and therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part of this case is without merit without further review.

B. Determination as to the claim against K land of this case

(1) Summary of the Plaintiff’s claim

In the event of double registration for preservation of the same real estate, unless there is any assertion or proof that the registration of preservation of ownership, which was the basis of registration for transfer of ownership, is null and void, the registration of preservation of ownership, which was completed later, shall be null and void regardless of whether it conforms with the substantive legal relationship. There is no reason to deem that the registration of preservation of ownership of the non-party M, which was completed earlier with respect to the land in this case, is null and void. Therefore, the registration of preservation of ownership completed later in the name of the non-party clan shall be deemed null and void. Thus, the defendants are obliged to implement each procedure for the registration of ownership transfer

(2) Determination

However, as seen earlier, the registration of dual preservation by the same real estate is completed in the name of the non-party clan because the land of this case was substituted with the land of this case pursuant to the farmland improvement on July 21, 1980, and the registration of dual preservation was completed in the name of the non-party clan (in the case where the registration of dual preservation was completed in the name of the non-party clan after the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the non-party clan, the registration of dual preservation was made in the name of the non-party clan due to the mistake in substitution). Even if the ownership preservation steam after the family affairs is null and void, the plaintiff did not have any authority to seek against the defendants the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the land of this case due to the restoration of authentic name. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit (the plaintiff's claim for this part is null and void due to the entry in the evidence No. 2 as well as the ground for this part of the plaintiff's claim).

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants against the defendants is dismissed in its entirety for reasons.

Judges Lee Dong-won

A person shall be appointed.