Plaintiff 1 and 16 others (Attorney Gyeong-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 3 and 12 others (Attorneys Ahn Jae-hun et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

August 28, 2007

July 10, 2007 (Defendant 1, 2, 3, 6, 8, and 9) and August 28, 2007 (Defendant 4, 5, 7, 10, 11, 12, and 13)

Suwon District Court Decision 2005Gahap4588 Decided September 8, 2006

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs except the plaintiff 1 as to the real estate listed in No. 11 of the annexed Table 3 shall be revoked.

As to the shares of 638/2323.5 of the real estate listed in No. 3 List No. 11 of the attached Table No. 11, Defendant 1 shall take the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the restoration of real name, and Defendant 2 shall implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the restoration of real name as stated in the attached Table No. 4.1 of the attached Table No. 3, and Defendant 2 shall implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the restoration of real name.

2. All remaining appeals by the plaintiffs 1 against the defendants 3, 4, and 5 and by the plaintiffs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 5, 12, and 13 other than the plaintiffs 1, and all remaining appeals against the defendants 1 and 2, except the plaintiffs 1 and 2.

3. Of the total litigation cost, the part arising between the plaintiffs except the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 1 is borne by the above defendant, and the part arising between the above plaintiffs and the defendant 2 is divided into two parts, which is borne by the above plaintiffs 1, and the remaining part is borne by the above defendant, and all of the remainder is borne by the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The decision of the court of first instance shall be revoked. With respect to the land listed in the No. 3 List No. 1; Defendant 4 as to the land listed in the No. 2 and 3; Defendant 5 as to the land listed in the above List No. 4 as to the land listed in the No. 3 List No. 1; Defendant 4 as to the land listed in the No. 4 as to the land listed in the Attached List No. 1 as to the remaining plaintiffs except Plaintiff 1; Defendant 6 as to the land listed in the No. 5 in the Attached List No. 3 as to the land listed in the No. 3 List No. 6; Defendant 8 as to the land listed in the Attached List No. 7; Defendant 9 as to the remaining 1/2 of the land listed in the No. 3 List No. 10; Defendant 10 as to the land listed in the Attached List No. 39; Defendant 5 as to the land listed in the Attached List No. 2 as to the Attached No. 163. 196.

1. Basic facts

A. The owner's column for land cadastre of 517 square meters in Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-do, 719 (1,709 square meters) is indicated as the lowest rule. The owner's column for land cadastre restoration is indicated as the highest rule in Yacheon-gu, Yacheon-do. The above real estate was registered for ownership preservation in the future of the Republic of Korea on May 11, 1972, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on December 30, 1961 on the ground of the completion of farmland repayment under Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act, and on January 1, 1977, each real estate listed in attached Table 3 (hereinafter referred to as "land substitution order") was recorded as the land substitution order in attached Table 3 (hereinafter referred to as "land substitution order").

B. Meanwhile, the distribution farmland register prepared by the competent administrative authority with respect to the 517 square meters (1,709 square meters) in Yacheon-gun, Gacheon-gun, Gacheon-gun, Gacheon-do, Gacheon-do, Gacheon-do, Gacheon-do, Gacheon-do, Gacheon-do, 719 square meters (1,709 square meters) prior to replotting, was registered after distribution of the said land, and the said land was distributed, and the compensationer is stated as the maximum rule, and Defendant 3 holds a certificate of repayment and a certificate of registration right to the said land.

C. The owner's land cadastre of this case was indicated as the fact that the maximum truth was found to have been established in the south of Gyeongcheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do, 448 to 234, and the third land cadastre of this case. The above 448 to 234 was divided into the 448 to 198-2, the same 448 to 198, on July 23, 1973, and the 248-2 was registered on June 1, 197, and the above land was registered on August 5, 198, and the registration of ownership transfer was made on August 1, 198 to 198 to 196, on the 97, the ownership transfer of the land of this case for the restoration and preservation of the unclaimed land owned in Suwon-do, and on the 197, the ownership preservation registration was made on December 31, 1982 to 197.

D. The land was divided into 70-2 Dog-gu and 70-2 Dog-gu and 649 square meters (2,145 square meters) in Gyeonggi-do. The land cadastre of the above 70-2 Dog-2 649 square meters (2,145 square meters) was entered into the fact that the maximum truth was found to have been located in the male male male male male male male male male male male male male male female, and the above land was divided into 70-2 Dog-2 1,897 Dog-7 and 70-7 Dog-8, etc. on November 22, 1988, and the registration of ownership transfer was made on March 27, 1989 on the above 70-2 Dog-1,897 Dog-2 1,897 Dog-2, and the registration of ownership transfer was made on March 27, 2009.

E. On December 13, 1961 with respect to the land of this case, the registration of ownership preservation was completed in the name of Nonparty 7 on December 13, 1961, and on August 5, 1965, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 6, 1965, and on February 15, 197, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 11, 197, and on February 29, 200, Defendant 12 was completed.

F. On December 31, 1961, the transfer of ownership was completed under the name of the non-party 7 on December 20, 1969 with respect to the 388 paddy-gu, Gyeonggi-do, Ycheon-gu, Ycheon-gu, Gyeonggi-do. The land was divided into the six land on October 27, 1985, and the transfer of ownership was completed on December 3, 1965 on the said land. On August 19, 1996, the transfer of ownership was completed on July 11, 1996 on the non-party 9, and on October 31, 2001, the transfer of ownership was completed on October 29, 200, and the cooperative registered the establishment of a mortgage on October 13, 2003 as the maximum debt amount.

G. On December 31, 1961, the land of this case was divided on December 20, 1969 after the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of Nonparty 7 on December 31, 1961 with respect to the paddy-gu, Gyeonggi-do, Ycheon-gu, Ycheon-gu, Yancheon-do. On May 23, 1983, the registration of ownership transfer was made on October 20, 1960 for the farmland repayment under Article 11 of the Farmland Reform Act on October 20, 1960, and on January 6, 2004, the registration of ownership transfer was made on November 5, 2003 on the share of January 19, 2005, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 12, 2005 on the gift made on July 17, 2005.

H. On October 31, 1959, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Nonparty 7 with respect to the land of 580-1, 807 square meters in Yacheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Nonparty 11 on December 31, 1969, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of sale under Nonparty 12 on December 17, 1997. On March 31, 1962, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Nonparty 7 on March 31, 1962 with respect to the land of 586-2,679 square meters, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of Nonparty 11 on December 31, 1969 on the land of this case on October 16, 198 each of the above land under the name of the land of this case on May 16, 198.

I. On December 31, 1964, the 580 square meters of 2,136 square meters in Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-do, 580-3 river of 580-4, 580-4 square meters in Do, and 496 square meters in 580 square meters in Do. On March 31, 1962, the registration of ownership was completed for the above 580 land under Non-party 7 on June 17, 1981, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed for the reason of sale on May 22, 1975. The land was substituted to the instant 9 land by the improvement project, such as agricultural infrastructure, etc. on June 9, 199.

B. On July 14, 1972, the land register was corrected on July 14, 1972 at 1,290 square meters and 70-3 square meters per 70-1 square meters per 70-3 square meters per 703 square meters per 70-3 square meters. On December 31, 1961, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under Nonparty 7’s name on September 8, 1972 on the land of 105 square meters, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed under Nonparty 13’s name on February 15, 1963, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the land of 10-10 square meters under the name of Nonparty 168-16, 1972.

(k) On December 13, 1961, the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of Nonparty 7 on December 13, 1961 with respect to the 430-1 m38 m2, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gun, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, and the registration of ownership transfer was made under the Special Assistance to the Water Welfare, the name of Defendant 1 on November 20, 191, and the registration of ownership transfer was made under the Special Assistance to the Water Welfare, and on August 25, 2000, the ownership transfer was replaced with the 405-1 m2, which was made under the name of Defendant 1 on August 25, 200, to the land of this case due to the improvement project, such as agricultural infrastructure, etc., and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 9, 2004 with the maximum maximum debt amount of Defendant 2.

Other. On August 17, 1920, the highest court determined that the non-party 14, who was the head of the family, was solely inherited as the deceased on August 17, 1920. The non-party 14 died on August 20, 1950, and the non-party 15, who was the head of the family, as the head of the family inheritor, was the sole inheritor, and the non-party 15 died on April 24, 1951, and the plaintiff 1 was the head of the

(m) On February 11, 1972, Nonparty 7: (a) died of Nonparty 16, his wife Nonparty 16; (b) died on February 11, 1972; (c) died of Nonparty 3, Nonparty 17, and Nonparty 17, and was married to the Republic of Korea by Nonparty 18, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 19, and Nonparty 5, who were in the same family register, were jointly succeeded to the property of Nonparty 7; (d) died on November 16, 2004, Nonparty 17 and jointly succeeded to the property of Nonparty 6; (e) Plaintiff 7,8, and 9; (e) died on May 21, 2001, Nonparty 18 were children; (e) died on May 21, 2001, Plaintiff 10, 111,12, and 13, and Nonparty 4, respectively, died on May 16, 2015.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 through 6, Gap evidence 2 and 9-1 through 5, Gap evidence 3, 4, 7, 8-1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 5, 6, 10-1 through 14, Gap evidence 11-1 through 10, Eul evidence 1-4, and Eul evidence 1-1 through 4, the fact inquiry results of the court of the original instance, the fact inquiry results of each fact inquiry, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Determination as to the claim for the land Nos. 1 through 4 of this case

(1) Plaintiff 1’s assertion

In order to restore the title of registration, the said Plaintiff, as the genuine owner who acquired ownership pursuant to the law, is the real owner who acquired the ownership under the title of the said Defendants, instead of claiming for the preservation of ownership and the cancellation of ownership transfer registration under the title of the said Defendants, sought the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration against the said Defendants, who are the current registered titleholder, instead of claiming for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration, in lieu of the registration under the said Defendants’ name, in order to restore the title of registration.

(2) Determination on the cause of the claim

(A) Whether the plaintiff's family members and the name of the situation are the same

First, as to whether the highest truth-finding and the plaintiff's evidence-finding were the same person, the address of the highest truth-finding prior to the substitution of the land No. 1, 2, and 4 of this case and the land No. 3 of this case as the land cadastre "Yeong-gun, Gecheon-gun, Gecheon-gu, 719, 517, which are the land before the substitution of the land No. 1 of this case, is indicated as the "Yejin-gu, Yeong-gu," and the address of the highest truth-finding, which is the land cadastre No. 1 of this case before the substitution of the land of this case, is indicated as the "Yejin-gu, Yeong-gu, Yeong-gu, Yeong-gu," and there is a reasonable ground to view that the legal domicile of the plaintiff's evidence-finding, the legal domicile of which is the plaintiff's evidence-finding of this case, is the "Yejin-jin-gu, Ga-J, 1 of this case."

(B) The presumption of registration in Defendant 3, 4, and 5

Furthermore, unless there is any counter-proof such as the change of the circumstances by the adjudication, a person registered in the Land Survey Book as a landowner shall be presumed to be the land owner and a person who received the land assessment by presumed to have become final and conclusive (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu1152, Jan. 24, 1984). Thus, as long as the original acquisitor of each of the above lands was revealed, registration of preservation of ownership in the Republic of Korea, non-party 5, and non-party 6, each of the above lands of this case, shall be registered as invalid because its estimated capacity is broken.

Therefore, unless there is any assertion or proof as to the fact that each registration of ownership transfer in Defendant 3, 4, and 5 conforms to the substantive legal relationship, it shall be cancelled as a registration of invalidation of cause, unless there is any assertion or proof as to the conformity of the substantive legal relationship. Accordingly, Plaintiff 1, a real owner who acquired ownership under the law, may file a claim against Defendant 3, 4, and 5, who is the present registered titleholder, in lieu of the claim for cancellation of the above registration of ownership transfer, for the implementation of the registration procedure for ownership transfer transfer based on the restoration of real name. Therefore, the above Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name with respect to each of the above lands to Plaintiff 1

(3) Determination as to the defendants' defense

(A) The First Land of this case

1. The parties’ assertion

The defendant 3, his father, the non-party 4 of the above defendant's above defendant's father was distributed the above land under the old Farmland Reform Act (repealed by Act No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994; hereinafter referred to as the "former Farmland Reform Act") and succeeded to the above defendant. Accordingly, since the above defendant's registration of transfer of ownership was made on the ground of the completion of repayment of the above land, the above defendant's above transfer of ownership was a valid registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Accordingly, the plaintiff 1 asserted that the above land was registered in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. In light of the fact that the registration of transfer of ownership was made in the future of the Republic of Korea on May 11, 1972, since the person who received the above land at the time of the above registration was not able to complete repayment, the non-party 4 did not acquire the ownership of the above land, and therefore, the government's purchase of farmland by the former Farmland Reform Act did not return to the original land owner.

(2) Judgment

Therefore, the distribution farmland register on the Gecheon-gun, Gecheon-gun, Gecheon-gun, Gecheon-do, Gecheon-do, Gecheon-do, Gecheon-do, 719 square meters (1,709 square meters), stated that the non-party 4, who resides in the Gecheon-do, Gecheon-do, No. 450 square meters, received the above land and completed the registration after distribution, and Defendant 3 holds a repayment certificate and a registration certificate on the above land, as seen earlier. In full view of these circumstances, Defendant 3 completed the repayment of the above land distributed by his father by inheritance and completed the registration of ownership transfer under its name, and thus, the above transfer registration under the above defendant's name is valid registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship.

Furthermore, in light of the fact that registration of initial ownership was made in the Republic of Korea on May 11, 1972 on the above land, it is difficult to see that registration of initial ownership was completed in the Republic of Korea on May 11, 1972, solely on the fact that registration of initial ownership was made in the Republic of Korea on May 11, 1972, in view of the following: (a) whether Nonparty 4, who was distributed the above land at the time, could be deemed to have failed to complete repayment; and (b) Defendant 3 holds a certificate of repayment and a certificate of registration of right to the above land

(B) The land Nos. 2, 3, and 4 of this case

1. The parties’ assertion

Defendant 3, 4, and 5 asserted that the registration of transfer of ownership in the above Defendants’ names of each of the above lands was completed in accordance with the lawful procedure under the Special Coordination Act, and thus, it is valid in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. As to the land of this case, Plaintiff 1 asserted that Defendant 4 himself, who was distributed the land of this case to Nonparty 5, was acquiring the land of this case in lieu of the above 457 land, because Nonparty 7, who was the owner of the above 457 land, sold the land to Nonparty 20, and Nonparty 5, who was the owner of the above 457 land, was not the owner of the above 457 land. Thus, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Nonparty 5 was not lawfully made in accordance with the Special Coordination Act, and there was no reversal of the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Nonparty 3, who was the owner of the above 457 land.

(2) Judgment

Therefore, if a registration of preservation of ownership has been made under the Special Assistance to the Water Welfare Zone Act, even if it is found that there is another person in charge of the land, the registration is completed in accordance with the legitimate procedures prescribed by the Special Assistance to the Water Welfare Zone Act, and it is presumed to be a registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. The person who files a lawsuit to cancel such registration of preservation of ownership is presumed to have been completed as a registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. The person who files an application for the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the title holder in the application for the registration of the land cadastre or the forest land cadastre or for the owner's restoration, or for any other reason that the certificate of guarantee or confirmation under the Special Assistance to the Water Welfare Zone Act, which is a document attached to the registration, was false or forged, or that the registration of preservation was not lawfully made in accordance with the Special Assistance to the Water Welfare Zone Act, and the presumption of the right to the above land was not proved to have been completed or proved to have not been distributed to the above third party's heir after the fact that the above 2 was not distributed to the above land or any other reason attached to the above 3rd.

B. Determination as to the claim against the land Nos. 5 through 11

(1) Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff 1 (hereinafter “Plaintiff 2, etc.”)’s assertion

Since Nonparty 8, 10, 11, 6, 3, 11, and 1 completed the registration of ownership transfer without title as shown below with respect to each of the above lands, all of the above registrations of ownership transfer and subsequent registrations are invalid. Therefore, Defendant 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 5, and 1, the title holder of each of the above lands, are obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of authentic title, and Defendant 12, 13, and 2, the title holder of the right to collateral security, are obligated to perform the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of authentic title.

(2) The fifth land of this case

The plaintiff 2 et al. asserted to the effect that the presumption of ownership transfer registration under the defendant 6's name is reversed on August 5, 1965, since the above land was requisitioned by the military as of September 1, 1958 and it was impossible for the non-party 7 who was the owner to dispose of the above land in around 1965, even though it was impossible for the non-party 7 to dispose of the above land, on the grounds of sale on May 6, 1965.

Therefore, according to the statement of evidence No. 13-1, Sep. 1, 1958, it is presumed that the above land was requisitioned to the Gun on Sep. 1, 1958, but if the registration of ownership transfer is completed on a certain real estate, the registration is lawful and it is presumed that the state of true right is announced publicly. Thus, the person who asserts that the registration is unlawful is responsible for proving the opposing fact that he/she is reversed the presumption power (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da72763, Apr. 10, 200). Thus, the above circumstance alone alone is that there is no ground for the registration of ownership transfer under the name of Nonparty 8 or that it is invalid. Thus, the above assertion by Plaintiff 2, etc. is without merit.

(3) The sixth land of this case

① Plaintiff 2, etc.’s assertion

Although Defendant 3 did not purchase the above land from Nonparty 7, Nonparty 7 asserted that he purchased the above land from Nonparty 7 who died after he died on February 11, 1972, and received a favorable judgment on October 27, 1981 by filing a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration and received it on October 27, 1981, and thus, the presumption of ownership transfer registration is reversed.

(2) Judgment

Therefore, according to the evidence No. 1, the defendant 3 filed a lawsuit against the non-party 7 for the performance of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale as of December 4, 1965, and obtained a favorable judgment, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 27, 1981. The lawsuit against the deceased shall not take effect even if the judgment becomes final and conclusive due to a lawsuit not taken by the party. The registration made upon the application for registration of the deceased's name shall not take effect, and the registration made upon the application for registration of the deceased's name shall not be presumed as invalid, but if there are circumstances such as the existence of the cause for registration existing before the death of the person liable for registration, the presumption of the registration cannot be denied. Thus, in this case without any evidence to prove that the defendant 3 filed a lawsuit for the performance of the above procedure for the registration of ownership transfer after the death of the non-party 7. Thus, it cannot be said that the application for registration was made after the death of the non-party 7.

(4) The land Nos. 7 and 8 of this case

① Plaintiff 2, etc.’s assertion

Although the land of this case was stated on December 20, 1969 as divided in Gyeonggi-do, Yacheon-gun, Yacheon-gu, Yacheon-do, 388, Defendant 9 asserted that the presumption of ownership transfer registration in the name of Nonparty 10 was reversed in light of the above circumstances, and that the land of this case was an invalidation of the cause for non-compliance with the procedure for farmland distribution.

(2) Judgment

Therefore, if an ownership transfer registration for a certain land has been made on the ground of the completion of repayment, the procedure for the distribution of farmland is presumed to have been lawful, and it is presumed that the distributor occupied and cultivated the land before and after the time of distribution of farmland (Supreme Court Decision 92Da45773 delivered on May 14, 1993), and according to the entries in the old land cadastre (Evidence A-3) and the old land cadastre (Evidence A-3) written on December 20, 1969, it is deemed that the land of this case was divided into 388 in the Tong-gu, Gyeonggi-do, Ycheon-gu, Y-do, Y-do, Y-do, Y-do, Y-do-ri, Y-do-ri, Y-do-ri, Y-do-si, and so long as the above land was distributed on the above land in the old land register (Evidence B-3). Thus, it cannot be deemed that the above ownership transfer registration was made without any reason for the above plaintiffs's ownership transfer registration without any ground.

(5) Land No. 9 of this case

① Plaintiff 2, etc.’s assertion

Plaintiff 2, etc. asserted that even though Defendant 11 purchased the above land from Nonparty 7, Nonparty 7 died on February 11, 1972, he purchased the above land from Nonparty 7, and that he received a favorable judgment on August 17, 1981 and received it on August 17, 1981, the presumption of ownership transfer registration is reversed.

(2) Judgment

Therefore, according to the evidence No. 5, it is recognized that Defendant 11 filed a lawsuit for the execution of the procedure for ownership transfer registration against Nonparty 7, who died on February 11, 1972 on the ground of sale as of May 22, 1979, and obtained a favorable judgment and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the above land on August 17, 1981. The above judgment is a lawsuit against the deceased and becomes effective. Thus, the above registration of ownership transfer in Defendant 11’s name based on the above invalidation judgment also becomes invalid.

As to this, Defendant 11 asserts that since purchased from Nonparty 21 in the middle of the 1960s, he cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s request, since the acquisition of the above land by Nonparty 21 began to occupy the above land in peace and openly with the intention to own it, and the acquisition by prescription has been completed for a period of twenty years thereafter, the above ownership transfer registration under

Therefore, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement of Dop, No. 9, the above defendant 11 has cultivated the above land after purchasing it from the non-party 21 in the mid-1960s and has been occupied so far. The plaintiff 2, etc. and their fleets are recognized to have not raised objections to the use of the above defendant's possession before the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the above defendant has occupied the above land from May 22, 1979, at least since May 22, 1979, at the time of purchase in the grounds for registration. The above possession is presumed to have been peaceful and performing as his own intent.

As to this, although Defendant 11 did not purchase the above land, the plaintiff 2 et al. filed a lawsuit against the non-party 7 who died on February 11, 1972 for the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer and obtained a favorable judgment and possessed the registration of ownership transfer of the above land on August 17, 1981. In light of the above circumstances, in light of the above circumstances, the above possession by the defendant 11 is alleged to be the owner from August 17, 1981 at least as it is alleged to be the owner from August 17, 1981. Thus, it cannot be said that the above reasons of the plaintiffs' assertion alone cannot be said to have proved that the defendant 11 had been aware of the fact that it did not meet such legal requirements without any legal act or any other legal requirements, and therefore, the presumption that the possession of the intent to own is still nonexistent. Therefore, the above plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

Therefore, from May 22, 1979, Defendant 11 occupied the above land in peace and openly with the intention to own it and ombudsman, and on May 22, 1999 when 20 years have elapsed since the above point of time, the prescription period for acquisition of possession of the above land was completed. Thus, the above transfer registration of ownership on the above land of the above defendant is a valid registration consistent with the substantive management relationship. Thus, the above defendant's above assertion is reasonable, and the above plaintiffs' above assertion is therefore without merit.

(6) The 10th land

The above plaintiffs' registration of transfer of ownership in the name of non-party 6 was made under the Special Provision of the Suwon-gun, Gyeonggi-do Special Provision of the Welfare Zone after the non-party 7, who is the person liable for registration, died, and the defendant 5 made the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the non-party 7 with respect to the area of 70-1 m2, 616m2, Y-gu, Y-gun, Gyeonggi-do Special Provision of the Welfare Zone prior to the substitution of the above land without his ownership. The above plaintiffs' assertion that the registration is not a legitimate registration, and therefore, the registration is completed in accordance with the Special Provision of the Welfare Zone Act, and it is presumed that the registration is completed in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. The person who seeks the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the Special Provision of the Suwon-gun Special Provision of the Welfare Zone or that the registration was not duly made in accordance with the Special Provision of the Welfare Zone Special Provision for any other reason. Therefore, the above plaintiffs' assertion cannot be justified.

(7) The land of this case No. 11

① Plaintiff 2, etc.’s assertion

The above plaintiffs asserted that the registration of transfer of ownership in Defendant 1 in the name of the person liable for registration for the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the area of 430-1 square meters in the Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, the land prior to the land substitution was completed under the Special Provision of the Water Welfare Act after Non-party 7 died, and Defendant 1 did not have received the distribution. The registration of transfer of ownership under the Special Provision of the Water Welfare Act was attached to the guarantee prepared by Non-party 1, 2, and 3 while he applied for the registration of transfer of ownership under the Special Provision of the same Act, but Non-party 1, 2, and 3 did not have the qualification of the guarantor as a person residing in the two Yacheon-gun, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, the land located in the same area, and therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership under Defendant

(2) Judgment

Therefore, Article 5 (1) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Construction of Water and Welfare (hereinafter referred to as "the Act on Special Cases concerning the Construction of Water and Welfare") provides that "if a person who is eligible to become a guarantor resides at all times in the Ri/Dong in the location of land, he shall be a person who has resided in the Dong/Dong for at least one year from August 15, 1945 to July 27, 1953 and has been continuously residing in the Ri/Dong for the last ten years. Where a person does not reside at all times in the Ri/Dong in the location of land, he shall be a person who has been residing in the Ri/Dong for at least one year at least the same time as an adult and has continuously resided in the Ri/Dong or Dong for the last five years, and shall be a person who meets the requirements for qualification of a guarantor to ensure the registration of ownership transfer for the most important purpose of the Act on Special Measures for the Construction of Real Estate and shall be determined and publicly notified by the head of the competent Si/Gun, regardless of the qualifications to be established.

According to the evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 1 as to this case, since the address of Nonparty 1, 2, and 3, the guarantor on the letter of guarantee attached when Defendant 1 applied for the registration of change of the land cadastre for the above land, as well as the address of Nonparty 1, 2, and 3, who is the guarantor on the letter of guarantee attached when he applied for the registration of change of the land cadastre, was not residing in Ri/Dong at the seat of the above land, the above transfer registration on the land No. 11 by Defendant 1 in the name of the defendant 1 is recognized. Thus, since the ownership transfer registration on the land of this case was completed by a certificate issued based on the certificate prepared by a guarantor who fails to meet the above basic qualification requirements, it shall be deemed that it is not legitimate in accordance with

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership in Defendant 1 is deemed to be a registration to nullify the cause. Since the establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of Defendant 2, which was completed on the registration of transfer of ownership, is also a registration to nullify the cause, the establishment of the right to collateral security in the name of Defendant 2, which was completed on the registration of transfer of ownership, shall be deemed to be also a registration to nullify the cause. Thus, the Plaintiff 2, etc., who is the property heir in Nonparty 7, is obligated to implement the registration of cancellation of the right to collateral security in the name of Defendant 1, according to the inheritance shares listed in the attached Table 4.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiffs 1 and 2's claims against the defendant 1 and 2 cooperatives are reasonable, and the plaintiffs 1 and 2, except the plaintiff 1 and 2, accept them within the above scope of recognition, respectively, and the plaintiffs 1' claims against the defendant 3, 4, and 5 and claims against the plaintiffs 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 5, 12, and 13 of the plaintiffs excluding the plaintiffs 1, and the remaining claims against the defendant 1 and 2 of the plaintiffs 1 and 2 except the plaintiffs 1 and 2, shall be dismissed in all of them due to the reasons. In the judgment of the court of first instance, since the part against the plaintiff 2, etc. as to the real estate stated in the attached Table 311, which had different conclusions, is unfair, they are revoked, and the plaintiffs' claims corresponding thereto are justified, and the remaining part shall be dismissed in all of the plaintiffs' remaining appeals.

[Attachment 3, 4]

Judge Lee Sung-sung (Presiding Judge)