Whether there is an error in the important part of the expression of intent in the case of a donation made to the State in response to the disposition of recovery of property devolving upon the State (affirmative)

Despite the fact that the real estate was purchased from Japan and cancelled, the State is the property devolving upon the State. If the owner donates the real estate to the State in response to the measures for recovery of the property devolving upon the State, the owner shall recognize the right of possession by a private contract, but if the owner fails to comply with such measures, the owner shall purchase the real estate by filing a lawsuit and then sell it by public auction. Thus, if the owner who is aware of the fact of cancellation of the ownership, gives a gift of the real estate to the State

Article 109 of the Civil Act

Gender Equality and 12 others

Korea

1. The defendant

A. The Daejeon District Court's budget registry office of the Daejeon District Court was cancelled on February 28, 1972 pursuant to No. 2527 of the receipt on October 10, 1945, followed the procedure for the registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of Non-party 1, who completed the registration of Non-party 1, the title transfer in the name of Non-party 1, who was closed on October 27, 1945;

B. On April 26, 1974, the procedure for the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership, which was completed on April 26, 1974 by the above registry office on the real estate (2) and the procedure for the registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership, which was cancelled by the above registry office No. 3039 on March 18, 1972, and the procedure for the registration of restoration of transfer of ownership, which was completed on October 10, 1945 as the above registry office No. 2513 on October 10, 194,

C. On June 16, 1976, the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration, which was completed as of June 16, 1976 by the above registry office as of the above real estate (No. 4161 on June 16, 1976), and the procedure for the registration of restoration of ownership transfer registration in the above registry office, which was cancelled as of October 8, 1945 by the above registry office (No. 2485 on October 8, 1945), will be implemented, respectively.

2. It is confirmed that the real estate recorded in the attached list (1) is owned by the Plaintiff’s sexual ceremony, leap, gambling book, gambling book, gambling book, gambling book, gambling book, gambling book, and gambling book. The attached list (2) real estate is owned by the Plaintiff’s literature.

3. The plaintiff Park Nam-Jin, Yu-Jin and Choi Byung-Jin's claim is dismissed, respectively.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion arising between the Defendant and the Defendant, among the costs of lawsuit, between the Plaintiff’s sexual ceremony, leap, gambling ceremony, gambling book, gambling book, gambling book, gambling book, Parkmaria, Park Jin-jin and the Defendant, shall be borne by the said Plaintiffs, respectively.

The judgment of the court below is identical to the judgment of the court below as stated in the Disposition Nos. 1 and 2, and the plaintiff Park Nam-jin is the Daejeon District Court Budget Office No. 9622 of Sep. 3, 1973 as to the real estate listed in the Attached List No. 9622, and the above real estate is owned by the above plaintiff.

The plaintiff U-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S

The plaintiff is entitled to file a judgment to confirm that the above real estate is owned by the above plaintiff as the registration office No. 9471 of August 28, 1973, which received on August 28, 1973 as to the real estate stated in the attached list (6).

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증의 1 내지 12(각등기부등본), 갑 제2호증의 1(제적등본), 2내지 8(호적등본 및 초본), 갑 제3호증이 1(재적등본), 2(호적등본), 갑 제4호증의 3, 갑 제8호증의 3내지 10(각 증인신문조서), 갑 제8호증의 1(조서), 2(검증조서), 갑 제9호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제10호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제11호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제12호증의 1 내지 3, 갑 제13, 14, 15호증(각 판결), 갑 제16호증(은닉국유재산처리), 갑 제17호증의 1, 2(관재업무예규표지 및 내용) 위 갑 제8호증의 4의 기재와 변론의 저취지에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 갑 제5호증(소청원), 갑 제6,7호증의 1(각 봉투), 2(각 편지)의 각 기재에 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 별지목록기재 부동산들(이하 이 사건 부동산이라한다)은 원래 일본인인 증서블이유의 소유였는데 , 소외 이동원이 1945.5.11. 위 부동산을 포함한 예산군일대의 토지 수백 필지를 일괄 매수하였으나 그 당시에는 임시농지통제령에 의하여 도지사의 허가를 받아야만 소유권이전등기를 할 수 있었기 때문에 그 허가절차를 밟고 있었던 중에 8.15해방이 되자, 소외 박승학에게 전매한 별지목록기재 (1)부동산 (이하 (1)이하 부동산이라고만 한다)은 대전지방법원 예산등기소 1945.10.10. 접수 제2527호로서 위 박승학이 명의로, 소외 원홍석에게 전매한 별지목록기재 (2)부동산 (이하 (2)부동산이라고만 한다)은 위 등기소 1945.10.10. 접수 제2513호로 위 원홍석 명의로 각 중간등기를 생략한 채 소유권이전등기를 마치고, 별지목록기재 (3)부동산(이하 (3)부동산이라고만 한다)은 위 등기소 1945.10.8. 접수 제2485호로서 위 이동원 명의로 소유권이전등기를 마친 후 소외 이우제에게 매도하고 이우재는 다시 원고 박명진에게 매도하여 이우재, 박명진명의의 소유권이전등기가 순차 마쳐졌으며, 별지목록기재 (4)부동산(이하 (4)부동이라고만 한다)은1945.10.8. 위 이동원 명의로 소유권이전등기가 경료되었다가 소외 이창수, 김옥순을 거쳐 원고 박남진의 명으로 인정되고, 별지목록 기재 (5)부동산(이하 (5)부동산이라고만 한다)은 같은 날 위 이동원 명의로 소유권이전등기가 되었다가 소외 김옥순, 최순화을 거쳐 원고 유완식명의로 이전되고, 별지목록기재 (6)부동산(이하 (6)부동산이라고만 한다)은 1945.10.8. 위 이동원 명의로 소유권이전등기가 경료되었다가 소외 김옥순, 최순화을 거쳐 원고 최병을명의로 이전된 사실, 위 이동원은 이 사건 부동산이 모두 1945.8.9. 현재 일본인 명으로 되어 있어 귀속재산으로 취급되어 국가에 소유권이 넘어가 버리게 되자 1947.11.경 당시 귀속해제소청에 관한 군정법령 제103호에 의하여 군정청 소청위원회에 귀속해제소청을 제기하였고 그 사건은 군정법령 제215호에 의하여 대전지방법원으로 이송되어 위 법원에서 심리한 결과 1949.1.21. 위 이동원이 송소판결이 선고되고 그 무렵 위 판결이 확정되어 이 사건 부동산은 귀속해제 되었음에도 불구하고, 피고 산하 예산세무서에서는 1970. 초 귀속재산을 색출하던중 이 사건 부동산이 귀속재산이라하여 (1)부동산에 관하여는 대전지방법원 예산등기소에 촉탁하여 위 등기소에 촉탁하여 위등기소 1972.2.28. 접수 제22호로서 위 박승학 명의의 등기를 말소하고, (2)부동산에 관하여는 이 등기소에 촉탁하여 위 등기소 1972.3.18. 접수 제3039호로서 위 원홍석명의의 등기를 말소한 후 다시 위 등기소 1974.4.26. 접수 제4424호로서 권리귀속을원인으로 한 피고명의의 소유권이전등기를마치고, (3)부동산에 관하여는 원고 박명진, 소외 이우재를 상대로 한 확정판결과 위 등기소에 대한 촉탁에 의하여 위 등기소 1976.6.16. 접수 제4160호, 제4159호, 제4158호로서 위 이도원, 이우재, 원고 박명진명의의 등기를 각 말소한후 위 등기소 같은날 접수 제4161호로서 권리귀속을원인으로 한 피고 명의의 소유권이전등기를 말치는 한편 (4), (5), (6)부동산이 귀속해제된사실을 모르는 원고 박남진, 유완식, 최병을에게 위 부동산은 구속재산인데 이를 국가에 증여하면 위 원고들의 점유권을 인정하여 수의계약으로 매수하도록 할 것이나 증여요구에 불응하면 소송을 제기하여 말소시킨 후 공매하겠다고 하므로 위 원고들은 증여요구에 불응했다가는 점유권마저 박탈될 것을 염려하여 국가의 귀속재산환수조치에 응할 수밖에 없다는 생각에서 (4), (5), (6)부동산을 각 국가에 증여하고 국가는 (4)부동산에 관하여는 위 등기소 1973.9.3. 접수 제9622호로서, (5)부동산에 관하여는 위 등기소 1973.8.28. 접수 제9470호로서, (6)부동산에 관하여는 위 등기소 19738.28. 접수 제9471호로서 각 피고 명의의 소유권이전등기를 마친 사실, 그런데 원고들은 위 이동원이 이사건 부동산에 관한 귀속해제소청을 제기하여 승소확정판결을 받아 귀속해제된 사실을 근래에 와서 알게 된 사실, 소외 박승학은 1963.3.15. 사망하여 그 처자들인 원고 성

The property was jointly inherited by the deceased on July 23, 1947, and the deceased deceased on July 23, 1947, and the deceased deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the plaintiff

According to the above facts, the real estate is owned by Non-party 1, (2), (3) and (6) and is owned by Non-party 1, (2), (2), and (3), and (3) and it is erroneous for the defendant to cancel the registration of transfer of each ownership in the name of Non-party 1, (2), and (3) and the name of Non-party 1, who owns the real estate under the name of Non-party 2, (2), and (3). The registration of transfer of each ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate is an invalid registration without any cause for lack, and if the real estate is owned by the defendant, (4), (5), and (6) the name of the owner shall be restored if the land was owned by the defendant. At the time of the donation, each donation was made by the above plaintiffs, who did not know the fact that the plaintiff had been subject to the final judgment on the cancellation of the ownership, and thus, it is important for the court to cancel the registration.

However, the right to cancel the declaration of intention by mistake should be exercised within 10 years from the date on which the declaration of intention was made. However, since the plaintiff Park Nam-jin, Park Jin-jin, and Choi Byung-hee had cancelled the declaration of intention by mistake on the date of service of the copy of the complaint of this case which was clearly recorded after the lapse of 10 years from September 1973, the right to cancel the declaration of intention by mistake shall be deemed to have no effect of cancellation after the extinguishment of the right to cancel.

On the other hand, the defendant alleged that (1), (2), and (3) real estate has been managed in a peaceful and open manner with the intent of the defendant as owned by him for over 30 years since the piracy, and that (2), (3) real estate is completed for more than 10 years after its registration in the name of the defendant, and thus, it cannot respond to the plaintiffs' claims against the above (1), (2), and (3), but there is no evidence to prove that the defendant occupied the above real estate, and therefore, the above assertion is groundless.

(1) The real estate is owned by the Plaintiff Gamari, who is the heir of Nonparty 1’s property. The real estate is owned by the Plaintiff Gamari, who is the heir of Nonparty 1’s property. The real estate is owned by the Plaintiff Gamari, who is the heir of Nonparty 1’s property. The Defendant is liable to cancel the ownership transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 1’s title transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 1’s title transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 1’s title transfer, which was illegally cancelled on the real estate. The Defendant is liable to cancel the ownership transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 1’s title transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 1’s title transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 1’s title transfer, the procedure for cancelling the ownership transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 1’s title transfer, the procedure for cancelling the ownership transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 1’s title transfer and the procedure for cancelling the ownership transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 1’s title transfer registration in the above case.

Judges Park Jae-dae (Presiding Judge)