Plaintiff (Law Firm White, Attorney Lee Gyeong-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and four others (Attorney Choi Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

December 23, 2008

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2007Kadan24 Decided October 31, 2007

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

The Plaintiff (Appointed Party, hereinafter “Plaintiff”), 2, 3, 4, and 5 (Non-party 3 of the judgment of the Supreme Court) shall each share in inheritance indicated in the attached Form; Defendant 2 among the 3,570 square meters of land in 3,570 square meters of land in 2/9, Defendant 3, 4, and 5 shall implement the procedures for registration of transfer of ownership as to shares in 2/9 shares; Defendant 1 shall implement the registration of transfer of ownership as to the 2/9 shares of land in 100 square meters of land in 2/9; Defendant 2, 3, 4, and 5 shall implement the procedures for registration of transfer of ownership as to the above forest in 100s of land in 2/9; and Defendant 1 shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer as to the above forest in 2/9s of land

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. Each claim of the plaintiff and the designated parties shall be dismissed.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) except for adding the part of judgment as to the defendants’ assertion of defense to Chapter 6, Section 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance, the entry of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Additional matters to be determined;

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the forest of this case was purchased from Nonparty 1, who was Nonparty 4’s children, and completed the registration under Defendant 1’s name after Defendant 1’s title trust with Nonparty 6. The registration in the name of the Defendants was valid in accordance with the substantive relationship. However, the Defendants’ assertion is insufficient to recognize the Defendants’ assertion on the ground that the testimony of Nonparty 7 by Nonparty 3 and Nonparty 7 of the trial witness is insufficient, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claims of the plaintiff and the designated parties shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is consistent with this conclusion, and all appeals by the defendants shall be dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment]

Judges Kim Young-soo (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Kim Han-chul