Plaintiff (Law Firm Southern, Attorneys Jeon Chang-ho et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others (Law Firm Cheong, Attorneys Yang Jae-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

November 30, 2006

Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2005Gadan23951 Decided December 21, 2005

1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiff falling under the following order for implementation shall be revoked.

As to the portion of 3/46 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant 1 shall perform the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed on December 29, 1987 by the Suwon District Court Seosung registry office, which was received on December 29, 1987, and Defendant 2 (Co-Defendant 1 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), Defendant 3 (Co-Defendant 2 of the judgment of the original court of the Supreme Court), and Defendant 4 (Co-Defendant 3 of the judgment of the Supreme Court of the lower court of the lower court) with respect to the portion of 1/46 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet, the procedure for registration of cancellation of each ownership transfer registration completed on October 30, 1987

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal against the defendant 1 is dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the defendant 1 is divided into two minutes and one of them is the plaintiff, the remainder is the defendant 1, and the total cost of the lawsuit between the plaintiff, the defendant 2, 3, and 4 is two minutes and one of them is the plaintiff, the remainder is the defendant 2, 3, and 4.

The judgment of the court of first instance is revoked. The defendant 1 shall revoke the judgment of the plaintiff. The defendant 1 shall implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of transfer of ownership completed on December 29, 1987 with respect to the shares of 2/23 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet in the separate sheet by the Suwon District Court, the Sungwon District Court, the registration office, and the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership completed on December 29, 1987, and the defendants shall implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership completed on October 30, 1987 with respect to each share

1. Basic facts

The court's reasoning in this part is as follows: (a) "In the night" of 2, 14-15 of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be read as "in the middle," (number 1 omitted) "(number 1 omitted)", and (b) "in the middle," of 2, 15 as "in the (number 1 omitted)", and (c) "in the third, 3, and 4 of each portion among each real estate of this case" shall be added as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except that "in the case of Defendant 2, 3, and 4 of each portion among each real estate of this case, one-fourth of each portion among the reasons of the judgment

2. Determination

A. Determination on Defendant 1’s main defense

As for each of the instant real estate owned by the deceased non-party 1, the agreement on the division of inherited property between the deceased non-party 1 and the deceased non-party 1's co-inheritors including the plaintiffs was not reached, or such agreement is null and void, the defendant 1 raised a lawsuit seeking the cancellation of the part corresponding to the plaintiff's inheritance shares in each of the above registrations by asserting that the registration of ownership transfer made on October 30, 1987 and the registration of ownership transfer made on December 29, 1987 under the name of some co-inheritors and the above registration of ownership transfer made on December 30, 1987 on the ground that the ownership transfer registration made on December 29, 1987 was null and void, and that the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff was filed after the expiration of the exclusion period of 10 years from the date of the infringement of inheritance rights. Thus, this defense is unlawful.

(2) If the Plaintiff’s claim for the cancellation of ownership transfer on the part of the Plaintiff’s 1, 3, and 4, as to the ownership transfer registration on the part of the Plaintiff’s 1, 3, and 9, the ownership transfer registration on the part of the Plaintiff’s 1, 4, 3, and 1, 9, 1, 4, 9, 1, 9, 1, 4, 9, 1, 9, 1, 4, 9, 9, 1, 4, 9, 9, 1, 4, 9, 9, 1, 4, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 9, 1, 9, 1, 3, 4, 9, 9, 9, 1,2, 9, 9, 1, 3, 9, 1,2, 3, 1987, 3, 1,

B. Determination as to the claim against the defendant 2, 3, and 4 and the claim against the defendant 1 on December 29, 1987 for the cancellation of the transfer registration of ownership as of December 29, 1987

The agreement on the division of inherited property by agreement between the defendant 2 and the non-party 4 is valid, and if the agreement on the division of inherited property by agreement between the non-party 1 and the non-party 3 is not valid, or if the agreement on the division of inherited property by the non-party 4 is defective, the division of inherited property by agreement between the non-party 2 and the non-party 4 is invalid, and if the non-party 2 were to reach agreement on the division of inherited property by the non-party 3 as the non-party 1's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's owner's ownership's owner's owner's owner's ownership's owner's owner's ownership's owner's owner's ownership's owner's ownership's owner's ownership's owner's ownership's owner's ownership's owner's ownership's 7.

Meanwhile, according to the above facts, the deceased non-party 1's inheritance shares of the deceased non-party 1's co-inheritors are the shares of 1/23, respectively, under Article 1009 (1), (2), and (3) of the former Civil Act (amended by Act No. 4199 of Jan. 13, 190), and as the children of non-party 4 and non-party 1's wife, the defendant 1's shares of 6/23, the non-party 5 and 6's shares of 4/23, the non-party 1's children, and the plaintiff, the non-party 2, and the non-party 7's shares of 1/23, and thereafter, the inheritance shares of the non-party 4 are the shares of 1, the non-party 5, the plaintiff 6, the non-party 2, and the non-party 1's shares of 1/23/162/3 [the plaintiff's shares of the non-party 1232].

Therefore, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 are liable for the Plaintiff to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration as of October 30, 1987 with respect to shares of 1/46 (2/23 x 1/4) out of each of the instant real estate. Defendant 1 is liable for the Plaintiff to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration as of December 29, 1987 with respect to shares of 3/46 (2/23 x 3/4) out of each of the instant real estate.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration against the defendant 1 is dismissed as it is unlawful, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2, 3, and 4 is accepted as it is reasonable. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant 1 for cancellation of ownership transfer registration of December 29, 1987 against the defendant 1 shall be accepted within the above recognition scope and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the part against the defendant 2, 3, and 4 of the judgment of the court of the first instance is unfair in conclusion, this court's decision to revoke it and it shall be dismissed as against the plaintiff 2, 3, and 4 pursuant to the proviso of Article 418 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the part against the defendant 1 of the judgment of the court of the first instance as to the above part against the defendant 1 of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 2, 3, and 4 shall be dismissed as it is unfair, and the part against the plaintiff 1's appeal against the plaintiff 1.

[Attachment]

Judge Han-hee (Presiding Judge)