It shall be deemed that it is not the public property of the minority but the property of the clan.

Since purchased for the purpose of the starting of a clan and the management of a clan, it is reasonable to view it as the property of a clan, not the public property of the clan, even if part of the purchase fund was contributed from among the clans.

Daejeon District Court Daejeon District Court Decision -2015-Ga-11842 (2016.05)

Korea

Park AAB-2

oly 2016.17

2016.07.05

1. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant ParkA and ParkB is dismissed, respectively.

2. Defendant ParkCC shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership, which was completed under No. 0000 on January 9, 2014 with respect to the shares of 1/2, out of the shares of 1/5 of the real estate in the attached list, as stated in the attached Table, of the Daejeon District Court of Daejeon District Court.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant ParkA, and ParkB shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant ParkCC shall be borne by the Defendant ParkCC.

The judgment like paragraph 2 of the Gu Office's District Court and defendant Park Jong-chul, ************ by implementing the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership due to the termination of title trust on the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case with respect to shares of 1/5 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the defendant Park Jong-B will implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of the provisional registration of the right to claim transfer of ownership completed as of January 19, 2014 with respect to shares of 1/2 out of shares of 1/5 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet.

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Park South-Nam and ParkB

(a) Basic facts;

1) The plaintiff has a national tax claim amounting to KRW 00,00,000 against species**************.

2) The registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 1, 2007 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “each of the instant real estate”) on the grounds of sale and purchase on February 1, 2007. As to each of the instant real estate, the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer registration was completed on January 6, 2014 with respect to each of the instant 1/2 shares as to each of the instant real estate by the Daejeon District Court's Daejeon District Court's receipt of the Asan Branch Branch of the Daejeon District Court *****

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The plaintiff's assertion

Each real estate of this case is a co-owner who has 1/5 shares of each of the real estate of this case, and each of the real estate of this case is ****************************************** the ownership transfer registration has been completed in the future of the Simba in accordance with the title trust agreement and again the registration of ownership transfer has been completed in order to prevent the voluntary disposal of each of the real estate of this case of this case by Defendant Park Jong-A, a general secretary in the paper, as the right holder.

Therefore, the plaintiff is insolvent******************** The defendant Park Dong-A seeks the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of provisional registration of ownership transfer, which has been completed by false representation, as to the shares of 1/5 of each real estate of this case, ***************** the implementation of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer, which has been completed by false representation, to the defendant ParkB.

C. Determination

First,**************** it is difficult to recognize the existence of 1/5 shares in each real estate of this case only with health stand, Gap 2 through 6, and there is no other evidence to recognize this otherwise. Rather, in full view of the overall purport of the evidence above, each real estate of this case was decided to purchase the above land *********,*******,*******************************************? The certificate of confirmation submitted to the end of the clan****** the real estate of this case was the real estate **,***,*** the property of the deceased clan* the property of the clan* the property of the clan* the property of the deceased** the property of the deceased* the property of the deceased* the property of the deceased* the property of the deceased* the property of the deceased* the property of the deceased*.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion premised on the ownership of 1/5 shares out of each real estate of this case is without reason to further examine the remainder.****************** without reason for further review.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant ParkCC

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment without holding any pleadings: Article 208(3)1 of the Civil Procedure Act;

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Park In-CC is justified, and the claim against the defendant Park Jong-B is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.