(a) A person who is able to assert extinctive prescription and present such assertion;

B. The case holding that in a lawsuit where the plaintiff seeks the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, etc. which is invalid by subrogation of Byung, Eul, and Eul in succession, the defendant cannot make a defense that the defendant's right to claim the ownership transfer registration against Eul and Eul against Byung is extinguished by prescription

(a) Although the right naturally extinguished upon the expiration of the statute of limitations, if a person benefiting from the statute of limitations does not claim the statute of limitations in the lawsuit, it cannot be tried against the will, and the person benefiting from the statute of limitations refers to the person able to claim the right extinguished upon the expiration of the statute of

B. In a case where: (a) Party A sold the forest land owned by Party B to Party B; (b) Party B donated the forest land to Party B; (c) Party B donated the land to the Plaintiff; and the cadastral record of the said forest was destroyed and lost; (b) Party B died, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to inheritance in the future of the Defendant; (c) Party C, Party B, and Party B’s subrogation in succession to the Defendant seeking the registration of ownership transfer and the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration, the Defendant cannot raise an objection against Party B, and Party B’s respective claim for ownership transfer registration against Party B with the lapse of prescription

A. Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act. B. Article 162 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 79Da407 delivered on June 26, 1979 (Gong1979, 12038) 79Da1863 delivered on January 29, 1980 (Gong1980, 12593) 90Da17552 delivered on March 27, 1991 (Gong191, 1270)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and 5 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Chuncheon District Court Decision 90Na619 delivered on December 21, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The grounds of appeal (1) and (2) are also examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held on March 4, 1970 that the forest of this case was part of 2,790 square meters, and the forest of this case was owned by Nonparty 1, and that on September 26, 194, he sold 2,590 square meters including the forest of this case among the above ( Address omitted) forest of this case to Nonparty 2. The above Nonparty 2, around December 1958, donated to Nonparty 3, who was his own son, and Nonparty 3, who was the plaintiff. Meanwhile, during the process of restoring the forest of this case, the public cadastral record of this case was destroyed by the 6,25 incident, and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed in the public records keeping office of this case, and the registration of transfer of ownership was not completed in the public records keeping office of this case as to the forest of this case by Nonparty 6's land number and boundary was newly established, and that the above registration was made in the public records keeping office of this case's name and boundary, without any ground for the Defendants's death 16.

In light of the records, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the rules of evidence, misunderstanding of facts due to incomplete deliberation, or the legal principles on presumption of registration. There is no reason for this argument.

The grounds of appeal (3) and (4) are also examined.

Although the right to the expiration of the statute of limitations naturally expires, the right to the expiration of the statute of limitations can not be tried against the will of the person who receives the benefit of the statute of limitations unless the person who has received the benefit of the statute of limitations claims the statute of limitations in a lawsuit, and the person who receives the benefit of the statute of limitations refers to the person who has the right to the right to the extinction due to the expiration of the statute of limitations (see Supreme Court Decisions 79Da407, Jun. 26, 1979; 79Da1863, Jan. 29, 198; 90Da17552, Mar. 27,

In this case where the plaintiff in subrogation of the above non-party 2, non-party 3, and the above non-party 1's successors seeking the registration of the preservation of ownership and the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case which is null and void, the court below is just in rejecting the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription on the ground that the above non-party 2's defense against the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 3's right to claim the transfer of ownership against the above non-party 2 cannot be raised to the above non-party 3's defense that the extinctive prescription has expired, and the non-party 2 and non-party 3 did not complete the registration of ownership transfer within six years from the date the Civil Code enters into force, and thus the court below has lost their ownership pursuant to Article 10 (1) of the Addenda of the Civil Act. However, the court below did not specify the judgment on this point

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Woo-soo (Presiding Justice)