Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

Defendant 1 and one other

April 7, 2017

1. For the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Appointor:

A. Defendant 1:

1) The registration of transfer of ownership completed under No. 12812 on June 8, 2015 with respect to the shares of 4/5 out of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list;

2) The registration of each transfer of ownership completed under No. 12812 on June 8, 2015 with respect to each of the 8/85 shares in the respective real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2;

3) Transfer registration of ownership completed on June 9, 2015 with respect to 8/85 shares in the real estate listed in attached Table 3 as Busan District Court Busan District Court registry office, Busan District Court Decision 3993 on June 9, 2015

B. Defendant 2: (a) the ownership transfer registration completed under No. 15319 of the receipt of July 2, 2015 with respect to the share of 4/5 of the real estate listed in the attached Table 1 list;

Each cancellation registration procedure shall be implemented.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. Facts of recognition

1) Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 were legally married couple on April 18, 1960, and Defendant 1 was born on May 20, 1960 between them. Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 divorced on September 14, 1961.

2) Nonparty 1, while maintaining a de facto marital relationship with Nonparty 3, gave birth to the Plaintiff (appointed parties) and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”) as indicated in the following table. Nonparty 3 reported the birth of the Plaintiff, etc. as the natural father between Nonparty 4 and his spouse under law at the time of birth.

The date of birth as of September 10, 1962, including the Plaintiff on the 6th day of birth (appointed party) including the Plaintiff on the 6th day of September 15, 1968, and the designated person on October 11, 2196, 31 October 27, 1969.

3) Nonparty 1 owned each of the instant real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1-3 (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant real estate”), and died on January 27, 2015. Defendant 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 8, 2015 and June 9, 2015 with respect to the instant real estate on January 27, 2015.

4) On June 25, 2015, Defendant 1 sold to Defendant 2 real estate listed in attached Table 1 for KRW 130 million in the purchase price, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 2, 2015.

5) On February 12, 2016, the Plaintiff, etc. filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of paternity with Nonparty 4, the existence of paternity relationship with Nonparty 1, and the existence of paternity relationship with Nonparty 1 (this Court Decision 2016Ddan100298). The quoted judgment became final and conclusive on July 1, 2016. Accordingly, on July 27, 2016, the Plaintiff, etc. corrected Nonparty 1 to record Nonparty 1 as “her mother” in the family relations register.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-6 evidence (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1-7 evidence, Eul 1-6 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

An inheritor who becomes the other party to a claim for recovery of inheritance refers to a person who has an external appearance making the other party to the claim for recovery of inheritance by referring to a person who has no legitimate right of inheritance, or a person who occupies all or part of the inherited property by referring to the person who has held the title as an inheritor. Barring special circumstances, such as where registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the name of one of co-inheritors with respect to real estate that is inherited, if such registration has been completed due to inheritance, then such registration has been completed irrespective of the intention of the registered titleholder, unless there is any special circumstance such as that the registration has been completed irrespective of the intention of the registered titleholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da4688, Jan. 21, 1997; 2010Da3392, May 24, 2012)

In light of the above legal principles, Defendant 1 constitutes a nominal heir, and thus, Defendant 1’s registration of ownership transfer as to the remaining shares (4/5) in excess of one’s own inheritance shares (1/5) among the instant real estate is null and void. The registration of ownership transfer is also null and void due to Defendant 2’s registration of ownership transfer as to the relevant shares (4/5) among the real estate listed in attached Table 1’s attached hereto, which was based on the aforementioned facts. Therefore, the Defendants are liable to cancel the registration to the Plaintiff, etc.,

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted to the effect that Defendant 2 acquired ownership of real estate since he was unaware of the existence of the Plaintiff, etc. at the time of purchasing the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1. However, since the public trust is not recognized in the real estate registration, even if he believed the registration and purchased the real estate and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the event that the registration of ownership transfer is null and void, such registration cannot be deemed to have been acquired. Accordingly, the Defendants

B. Defendant 1 asserts to the effect that since the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 was already disposed of before the plaintiff et al. files a lawsuit seeking confirmation of paternity, etc., only the claim for the equivalent amount of inheritance pursuant to Article 1014 of the Civil Act can be made. However, since the parent-child relationship between the biological mother and the child is naturally determined by blood relationship, it cannot be readily concluded that it should be recognized only by the statement in the family register or the court's confirmation of existence of paternity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da34103, Feb. 25, 1992; 92Nu3199, Jul. 10, 1992). Ultimately, since the plaintiff et al. does not constitute "a person who becomes a co-inheritors after the commencement of inheritance or by the confirmation of judgment after the commencement of inheritance, the above assertion by Defendant 1 based on this premise cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

All claims by the plaintiff et al. are accepted on the grounds of merit.

【Attachment List of Selectioners and List of Real Estate]

Judges Park Il-young