Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Sung-hee et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and 31 others (Attorney Jeong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

June 26, 2013

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. Defendant 18 shall perform the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration as to the share of Nonparty 2, Defendant 1, Defendant 11, Defendant 12, Defendant 13, Defendant 14, Defendant 15, Defendant 16, Defendant 17, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 5, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, and Defendant 9 with the Ulsan District Court’s registry office as of June 19, 2003, which completed the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration as to the share of 42,075 square meters and 42,075 square meters and 42,075 square meters and as of the share of 488 square meters and 45,00,000,000 and completed the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration as to the share of 18, Ulsan District Court’s registry office as to the share of 483,856,075 square meters and the share of 45,000 square meters and 254,064,04.6364

C. Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, Defendant 6, Defendant 7, Defendant 8, Defendant 9, Defendant 20, Defendant 21, Defendant 21, Defendant 22, Defendant 32, Defendant 10, Defendant 23, Defendant 24, Defendant 25, Defendant 26, Defendant 27, Defendant 28, Defendant 29, Defendant 30, Defendant 31, Defendant 12, Defendant 13, Defendant 14, Defendant 15, Defendant 16, and Defendant 17, among [ Address 1 omitted] large 48 square meters and large 48 square meters, shall transfer the ownership of each of the following: (a) the transfer registration procedure under attached Table 1 with respect to the ownership of each of the following reasons: (b) the transfer registration under attached Table 13, 4, 14, 1, 1, 22, 3, and 3.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Ulsandong-gu ( Address 1 omitted) 488 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) shared 1/2 shares, respectively, by Nonparty 8 and Nonparty 7. However, in around November 1, 1994, the instant land was owned by co-owners listed in the separate sheet 3 for each share.

B. On June 18, 2001, Defendant 1 filed a lawsuit against 2-17 co-owners of the [Attachment 3] on the claim for ownership transfer registration based on the prescriptive acquisition and transfer agreement (Ulsan District Court 2001Kadan15155) and won the lawsuit, and the judgment became final and conclusive around that time. Meanwhile, on October 18, 2002, Defendant 1 received a compulsory decision to commence the auction against Nonparty 9 (No. 18) and Nonparty 10 (No. 19) shares (No. 3,366/53,856 shares) (No. 19 shares) among co-owners listed in [Attachment 3] list of the Seoul District Court 2002taba2483, Oct. 18, 2002.

C. After that, on August 20, 2002, Defendant 18 asserted the completion of the acquisition by prescription against the co-owners listed in the attached Table 3 (the withdrawal of the lawsuit against Defendant 2) on the instant land, and the judgment was finalized around that time by filing a lawsuit (Ulsan District Court 2002Gadan23252), and the said judgment became final and conclusive at that time. Thereafter, the instant land was divided into the Ulsan-gu ( Address 1 omitted) and the area of 272 square meters (hereinafter “the land at issue”) and the area of 216 square meters (hereinafter “the land at issue is omitted after the division”) on May 23, 2003) and the area of 216 square meters (hereinafter “the land at issue”).

D. On the other hand, with respect to the land ( Address 1 omitted), Defendant 1 completed the registration of transfer for the share of 4,460/53,856, excluding the share of Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 10, by his final and conclusive judgment. The share of Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 10 (No. 3,366/53,856 shares) was sold by compulsory auction on March 8, 2004 on the ground that the ownership was transferred to Nonparty 11 on April 29, 2004 on the ground that the ownership transfer was completed on May 3, 2004 on the ground that the ownership transfer registration was divided on May 1, 2004, and thus (No. 1 omitted) land was owned solely by the Plaintiff.

E. In addition, (1) As to (2) land after division, Defendant 18 completed the registration of ownership transfer as to (42,075/53,856 shares other than the shares of Defendant 2 and Nonparty 9, and Nonparty 10 among co-owners listed in the attached Table 3 list by his final judgment. (2) Defendant 1 purchased the above 42,075/53,856 shares from Defendant 18 and claimed for the registration of ownership transfer as stated in paragraph (1). (3) The above 5,049/53,856 shares were purchased from Defendant 2 and claimed for the registration of ownership transfer. (2) The above 18 completed the registration of ownership transfer by purchasing the above 5,049/53,856 shares from Defendant 2 and Nonparty 10's shares (each 3,366/53,856 shares) were sold by compulsory auction on March 8, 2004 and the ownership was divided on March 14, 2004.

F. After subdivision, the land ( Address 1 omitted) and the land ( Address 2 omitted) after subdivision were re-merged with the land of this case on December 14, 2009.

사. 한편, 소외 1은 이 사건 토지 중 별지1 도면 표시 3, 4, ㅇ, ㅈ, ㅊ, ㅍ, ㅂ, ㅅ, 3의 각 점을 순차 연결한 선내 (나)부분 81㎡(이하 ‘이 사건 계쟁토지 부분’) 지상에 있는 블록조 스레트지붕 단층 주택 및 창고 61㎡(등기부상 표시 : 블럭조 스레트지붕 단층주택 및 창고 71.13㎡, 이하 ‘이 사건 건물’이라 한다)에 관하여 1974. 11. 1. 일반건축물 대장상 소유자등록을 하였다가, 2001. 7. 9. 소유권보존등기를 마쳤다.

H. As to the building of this case, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 16, 2001 on the ground of sale on June 13, 2001, and thereafter on December 9, 2002, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale on December 9, 2002. Nonparty 6 owned the building of this case and used the part of the land in the dispute of this case as the site of the building, and again sold the building of this case to the Plaintiff on March 27, 2012, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the same day.

I. Meanwhile, on April 18, 2012, Nonparty 1 transferred the right to claim ownership transfer registration on the land in the dispute of this case to Nonparty 4 on the same day, and Nonparty 4 transferred the right to claim ownership transfer registration again to Nonparty 5 on the same day, and Nonparty 5 re-transfer the right to claim ownership transfer registration again to the Plaintiff on the same day.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1-9 evidence, Gap 6-1-3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. Claim for ownership transfer registration upon completion of prescriptive acquisition and claim for transfer of the above claim

From November 1, 1974, at the time when Nonparty 1 started the construction and possession of the building in this case, Nonparty 3 succeeded to the above possession from around November 1, 1994. Meanwhile, Nonparty 1 transferred the right to claim for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the prescriptive acquisition of the land in this case to Nonparty 4 on April 18, 2012. Nonparty 4 transferred the right again to Nonparty 5 on the same day, and Nonparty 5 transferred it again to the Plaintiff on the same day on the same day, and Nonparty 5 transferred it again on the same day on the interim omission and notification of the transfer transfer registration. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, who received the right to claim for ownership transfer registration on the land in this case from Nonparty 1 to the heir at the time of acquisition or transfer registration, can seek for ownership transfer registration registration registration against the heir at the time of acquisition or transfer registration.

B. The defendants' assertion of anti-social acts through mutual solicitation

On the other hand, around November 1994, the acquisition by prescription for the land in this case was completed, co-owners of the list in the separate sheet No. 3 were co-owners of the land in this case. At the time, they were liable to transfer ownership to Nonparty 1 as to each co-ownership share for the land in this case.

However, co-owners (excluding Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 10) at the time of the completion of the acquisition by prescription as follows, even though they knew of the existence of the instant building owned by Nonparty 1 on the ground of some of the instant land and the completion of the acquisition by prescription, were publicly recruited as follows.

First of all, Defendant 18 filed a lawsuit against the co-owners listed in the separate sheet No. 3 on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on the land of 216 square meters including the land in the instant land among the instant land, and each of the above co-owners did not dispute the above co-owners so that the said land is divided into approximately 216 square meters, and on this basis, Defendant 18 completed the registration of transfer of ownership, such as the entry in paragraph A(a).

In addition, Defendant 1 purchased the above shares from Defendant 18 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership as stated in Section 2., and purchased some shares from Defendant 2 and completed the registration of transfer of ownership as stated in Section 2.

As a result, co-owners listed in the attached list 3 (excluding Nonparty 9 and Nonparty 10) transferred their shares to Defendant 1 so that they would be subject to the obligation to transfer ownership to Nonparty 1, and Defendant 1 et al. actively participated therein. This act is invalid as anti-social act.

Therefore, as seen in the purport of the claim, the Plaintiff is the transferee who received the right to claim the transfer of ownership based on the prescriptive acquisition in succession, seeking the cancellation of registration of invalidation of cause for co-owners at the time of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition (in the case of becoming the deceased, his heir), and the person who participated in the act of breach of trust, and seek implementation

3. Determination

The plaintiff himself has filed the lawsuit in this case in the position of the transferee who received the right to claim the transfer of ownership based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription from the non-party 6, who is the right holder immediately before. Therefore, in order to accept the plaintiff's claim, the non-party 6, the transferor of the right, is the true right holder of the right to claim the transfer of ownership based

Therefore, according to the evidence Nos. 1 to 6-1 and 1 to 6, Defendant 1 filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 6, etc. for removal of the building of this case and for delivery of the land of this case (Ulsan District Court 2010Da15706), ② In the above lawsuit, Nonparty 6 asserted for the completion of the prescriptive prescription against the land of this case among the “Plaintiff’s assertion” as referred to in the preceding paragraph. ③ However, in the first instance judgment of the above lawsuit, Nonparty 6 rejected Nonparty 6’s assertion and ordered removal of the building of this case and delivery of the land of this case. ④ After that, Nonparty 6 raised an appeal (Ulsan District Court 2012Na2326) against Nonparty 2, and rejected Nonparty 2’s assertion that Nonparty 6’s claim was identical to the “Plaintiff’s assertion”, and the act of Nonparty 2’s assertion that the prescriptive prescription of this case’s land was non-party 39 and 6’s claim for completion of the appeal.

According to the above facts, the non-party 6 who transferred the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership to the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership based on the completion of the acquisition by prescription for the land in this case, and there is no other evidence to determine otherwise. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the non-party 6 was acquired the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership for the land in this case on the premise that it is the claimant for the transfer registration of ownership for the land in this case, is without merit,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judge Identification Date