1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a clan of which the 7th grandchild of the AL is a joint set of AM, and is comprised of his/her descendants.

B. On December 30, 1910, the land cadastre of 783 square meters before Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City NN, indicated the above four persons as being jointly assessed by AO, AP, Q and AR (hereinafter “AO”)

After November 9, 1995, the land was divided into each land listed in the separate sheet.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant lands” without distinguishing between the land above 129 and each land listed in the separate sheet, which is the land after subdivision, before and after subdivision.

A Q died on February 20, 1942, and AT, which is one of them, succeeded to the property solely with the family inheritance.

After October 8, 1951, AT died on October 8, 1951, and the defendant, who is the male head, succeeded to the property solely with the family inheritance.

Therefore, the defendant succeeded to the shares of 1/4 (one joint situation, AO, etc., one joint situation), among each land of this case, for which Q Q was jointly assessed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-1, 2, Gap evidence 4-1 to 4, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was the title trust of each of the instant lands to AO, etc., and AO, etc. received the assessment of each of the instant lands. The Defendant succeeded to the status of the title trustee as to each of the instant lands 1/4 out of the instant lands by inheritance from Q in sequence.

The plaintiff declared that the above title trust of each of the lands of this case is terminated by the delivery of a duplicate of the complaint of this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of termination of title trust with respect to each of the lands of this case.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion 1 was not that of the Plaintiff under title trust with AO, etc., but that of the land owned by AO, etc. from the beginning.