If a third party has forged a document and completed an inheritance registration in the name of one of the co-inheritors, whether such co-inheritors is a named inheritor.

The title inheritor who becomes the other party to a claim for recovery of inheritance refers to a person who possesses all or part of the inherited property by referring to the person who has the appearance of relianceing on the person who is the property inheritor or the heir, and it constitutes a case where one of the co-inheritors denies the inheritance rights of other inheritors and only one of himself/herself refers to the case where he/she has the inheritance rights. However, the registration of preservation of ownership, which has been made in the name of the co-inheritors Gap, was made in the name of the other co-inheritors, was made in the name of the co-inheritors, by denying the inheritance rights of Eul who is the other inheritor and referring to the case where only he/she has the inheritance rights, and it was made in the name of the third party regardless of the intention of Gap, and there is no other material to deem that Gap was the inheritance only by himself/herself in the lawsuit for recovery of inheritance.

Article 999 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da5740 Decided December 24, 1991 (Gong1992,635) Supreme Court Decision 92Da7955 Decided May 22, 1992 (Gong1992,1984) Decided 93Da49802 Decided January 14, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 720)

Park Ma-young

Attorney Lee Jong-young et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and one other

Jung-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant and two others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other Defendants (Attorney Long-term et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na4338 delivered on March 17, 1993

All appeals filed by Plaintiffs, Defendants 1 and 1 of the United States Agricultural Cooperatives are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.

1. We examine the plaintiffs' legal representative's ground of appeal No. 1 and No. 1.

(A) Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in comparison with the record, “2. 5. Forest land 7,323-2, 263-24. Forest land 4,202m2, 263-25 forest land 2,000-2, 263-26, 263-26. Forest land 2,473-2, 263-26, 263-3.” in attached Table 1 List 1 List 2 of the lower judgment’s judgment, “2. 7,323m2, 363-2, 263m2, 263-2, 263m2, 3. 7, 263m2, 263m2, 263m2, 3. 4, 202m2, 263m2, 206, 3. 3m26m3m2, 205, etc. of forest land.”

(B) Based on macroficial evidence, the court below purchased approximately 10 information on the remaining part except for real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the same list among the forest land No. 141,521m2 (No. 14 m. 2 m. 7m.) from the Mafun-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-gun, the inheritee of the plaintiffs, around February 1950, with the non-party Kim Jong-dong's deceased's deceased Mafun, the deceased deceased's decedent, and around 14,81m., the remaining part of the deceased's deceased Kim Jong-dong, the deceased's deceased Mafun was owned by the non-party Kim Jong-dong's decedent's decedent, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and the records of the court below's finding that the remaining part of the deceased Kim Jong-dong was owned by the above Kim Jong-dong Kim, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence and records.

(C) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above registration was in accord with the substantive legal relationship by recognizing the validity of each of the above registration concerning the plaintiff's shares as to each of the above real estate listed in the attached list No. 2 of the judgment below, and the registration of establishment of a neighboring agricultural cooperative in the name of the defendant Daesan as to each of the real estate listed in the attached list No. 2 and paragraph (3) of the same Article, which was originally owned by the defendant 1, but the registration of establishment of a neighboring real estate in the name of the defendant Taesan Agricultural Cooperative was invalid as follows. The plaintiff Park Jong-young received 50,000 won from the defendant 1 on June 21, 198, and did not raise any criminal objection against the ownership of each of the above real estate after receiving the payment of 50,000 won from the defendant 1 on June 21, 198. The court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the above registration was in accord with the substantive legal relationship.

In light of the records, the above recognition judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no ground for this issue.

2. We examine the grounds of appeal by Defendant 1 and Busan Agricultural Cooperatives attorneys long-term (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

(A) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, based on macroficial evidence, found that each real estate listed in the separate list No. 2 of the judgment of the court below was originally owned by the above lobing lobs, the deceased, but after the death of the above lobs, Defendant 1 knew that the above lobs had been destroyed by the register of each of the above real estate while raising the plaintiffs while occupying, managing, and managing each of the above real estate, and forged the plaintiffs' consent or consent without obtaining the above lobs' consent or approval, thereby making a registration of preservation of ownership of the above real estate under the name of the deceased lobscian on October 5 of the same year from the deceased 10th of the same year. On the same day, the court below did not err by misapprehending the facts that the above lobscian's registration was made in violation of the rules of evidence and the facts that the above lobscian's name had been registered in the name of the defendant 1.

(B) The court below rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants renounced ownership of each of the above real estate on the ground that there was no evidence to acknowledge it. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is acceptable, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above real estate, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles. The argument is without merit.

(C) The title inheritor who becomes the other party to a claim for recovery of inheritance refers to a person who possesses all or part of the inherited property by referring to the person who has the appearance of relianceing on the person who is the property inheritor or the heir, and it constitutes a case where one co-inheritors denies the inheritance rights of other inheritors and only one person himself/herself is referred to as having the inheritance rights. However, according to the records, the registration of preservation of ownership on each of the above real estate made under the name of the plaintiff Park Young-young alone is not a case where the plaintiff Park Young-young, who is the co-inheritors, denied the inheritance rights of the other co-inheritors, and only one person himself/herself has the inheritance rights, but it is not a case where the plaintiff Park Young-young, who is the co-inheritors, was made under the name of the other co-inheritors, and as seen above, he/she forged the relevant documents without any relation to the plaintiff Park Young-young's will, and there is no other evidence to deem that the plaintiff Park Young-young was his/her inheritance only.

Therefore, even if the claims of this case filed by the plaintiff Park Jong-young who asserted the validity of each of the above registrations in the name of the defendant 1 and Taesan Agricultural Cooperatives, which were based on the above registration in the name of the plaintiff Park Jong-young, are caused by inheritance from the above deceased Park Jong-young, it cannot be deemed as a lawsuit for recovery of inheritance. Thus, the above defendants' assertion that the ten-year limitation period has expired on the premise that it is a lawsuit for recovery of inheritance, cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, all appeals filed by the plaintiffs, defendants 1 and 1 are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)