The effect of registration of preservation of ownership made in the name of the heir after the trust is terminated.

The registration of preservation of ownership made in the name of the heir after the clan has terminated the trust contract to the heir of the trustee that the clan member registered in the forest register under title trust to one of the clan members is invalid without grounds for registration.

Article 186 of the Civil Act

Class I of plaintiff

Defendant 1 and one other

Seoul Civil Area, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na561 delivered on May 15, 1970

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

The defendants' legal representative's grounds of appeal No. 1 and No. 2 are examined.

However, by comparing the evidence cited by the original judgment with the records, the sale and purchase of the forest in question between the defendant Kim Dong-sik and the same female mar shall be easily determined by considering the fact that the forest in question is registered in the forest register under the name of the defendant Kim Dong-sik only, and that the forest in question is properly disposed of in order to transfer the name of the preferred ownership to the same female mar. Therefore, the court below's aforementioned purport is that it is reasonable to view that the transfer of ownership registration in the name of the defendant mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar mar.

The defendant's attorney's ground of appeal No. 3 and the defendants' grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

However, even after comparing the original judgment and examining the records, the original judgment was originally owned by the plaintiff clan, which is the one of the plaintiff clan members, and the facts were registered in the forest register under the name of the deceased non-party 1, who is the deceased non-party 1, or registered in the forest register for fact finding, there was any error in violation of the rules of evidence in the contents of evidence and the process or contents of fact finding. Next, according to evidence, the court below confirmed on November 6, 1967 that the plaintiff clan terminated the trust contract for the forest of this case to the defendant 1, who is the plaintiff non-party 1, the head of the above deceased non-party 1, and the property successor, and confirmed that the trust was terminated on December 29, 1967, which was completed on December 29, 196 after the trust was terminated, and therefore, the court below's claim for the cancellation registration for the forest of this case was justified, and therefore, it is not justified.

The defendants' attorney's second ground of appeal is examined.

However, since there is no evidence to support that Defendant Kim Dong-sik occupied the forest of this case, the court below's rejection of the Defendants' assertion on the acquisition of samples of the forest of this case should be reviewed in accordance with the records, and it is improper to hold that the court below did not give the Defendants an opportunity to prove, or on the premise that the court below should deliberate ex officio.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are examined.

However, even if the power of attorney of the court of first instance has the same defects as the theory of a lawsuit, it is recognized that the attorney of the court below has been ratified by legally granting the power of attorney from the non-party 2 of the representative of the plaintiff clan. Therefore, the plaintiff's representative cannot be a ground for appeal (section 19

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

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Kim Young-chul Kim Young-ho (Presiding Judge)