System of Ediversity for Exchangers

Inasmuch as the former system was repealed by the enforcement of the amended Civil Law on April 1, 1915, which was recognized as a substitutionist, the former system was abolished, and thereafter a person adopted as a sex shall not be a successor to the heritage of the substitutionist, and shall belong to the plaintiff who is the birth of the birth father who is the birth father of the birth father.

Article 877 of the Civil Act

On April 24, 1967, 65Ma1163 decided Apr. 24, 1967 (Kakad 7634 decided Apr. 7, 196, Supreme Court Decision 15 ① civil 334 decided Dec. 31, 199)

Plaintiff

Defendant 1 and four others

Sung-dong Branch of Seoul District Court (75 Gohap869)

1. Each appeal by the defendant, etc. is dismissed;

2. Costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant, etc.

On November 9, 1971, Defendant 1 received a registry office of the Seoul Central District Court on 4611 on November 9, 1971 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list Nos. 1 and 2, and the registration of transfer of ownership on 10.5 on 10.5 of the same year; Defendant 2 received the same registry office on 4612 on 9 November 19, 1971 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list No. 3, and Defendant 3 received the same list No. 15681 on 19 June 19, 1964 with respect to the real estate listed in the attached list No. 4, the registration of transfer of ownership on 15681 on 2.6. 1965 on 1965 on 4. 30. 1965 on 4. 30, 1964 on 4. 6. 6. 6. 7. 6. 7. 46. 7. 5

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, etc.

The original judgment is revoked. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The real estate listed in the separate list No. 1 was originally owned by the deceased non-party 1, and the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of the defendant non-party 1, as stated in the list No. 1, No. 1, No. 3, and No. 4 (No. 4). In full view of the entire purport of the pleadings, the non-party 2, who is the deceased non-party 4, was the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 4, and the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 9, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 4, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 9, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 4, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 9, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 4, the deceased non-party 9, the deceased non-party 1, the deceased non-party 5.

However, since the adoption of the deceased non-party 3 and the deceased non-party 4 was repealed by the above civil law since April 1, 1915 when the revised civil law was enforced, each adoption is null and void. Thus, the deceased non-party 3 and the deceased non-party 4 and the non-party 5 cannot be the inheritor of the deceased non-party 1, and eventually they cannot be deemed to have died without the inheritor of the property, and their legacy eventually belong to the plaintiff who is the birth of the deceased non-party. However, the deceased non-party 1 donated the real estate recorded in the attached list to the deceased non-party 4 who is the son around 1949 and made the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the donation, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the registration was completed on December 21, 1954.

Therefore, according to the above recognition, each registration of ownership by the deceased non-party 4 and non-party 5 is a registration of invalidation of cause, and each of the above registrations by the defendant, etc. based on it is also a registration of invalidation of cause.

However, the defendant 1, 2, and 1 are real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2, and 3, and the defendant 2 asserted that the ownership was acquired by prescription as stated in the separate sheet No. 3, but they have been occupied by the deceased non-party 4 and non-party 5 respectively, or there is no assertion or proof as to the requirements for the prescriptive acquisition or the requirements for the expiration of the prescription period, such as that each possession is autonomous possession, and therefore, the above defense cannot be accepted. Thus, the defendant, etc. has the obligation to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of each ownership transfer registration as above against the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is accepted, and the judgment of the court below is just and reasonable, and the appeal by the defendant, etc. is dismissed, and the costs of appeal

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Park Woo (Presiding Judge)