Plaintiff (Law Firm Southern, Attorneys Jeon Chang-ho et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and three others (Law Firm Cheong, Attorneys Yang Jae-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

December 7, 2005

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Defendant 1: (a) The Plaintiff: (b) the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on December 29, 1987 with respect to two-thirds of the shares in each real estate listed in the separate sheet; and (c) the Defendants shall implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on December 29, 1987 with respect to two-thirds of shares in each real estate listed in the separate sheet; and (d) the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed on October 30, 1987 with respect to two-thirds

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings as stated in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 to 4, and Gap evidence 3-1 to 4.

(1) On February 25, 2000, the above real estate was converted into the registration conversion under the same Ri (number 3 omitted), and 791 square meters (number 4 omitted), and 545 square meters (number 1 omitted), respectively, on March 24, 2004, each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) was divided into 12,016 square meters (number 5 omitted) and was divided into 12,016 square meters (number 5 omitted).

D. The above non-party 1 died on April 25, 1984, and his bereaved family member was the non-party 4 (the deceased on May 4, 1995), the defendant 1, the male, the non-party 5, the non-party 6, and the plaintiff, the non-party 2, and the non-party 7, who were his wife, were married. The non-party 2 died on February 20, 1987 and died on February 20, 1987 and was his husband as his husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's husband's co-defendant 3 (the co-defendant 1 of the judgment of the Supreme Court), the defendant 3 (the co-defendant 2 of the judgment of the court below of the Supreme Court), and the defendant 4

Secondly, on October 30, 1987, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants was completed on the grounds of the agreement division as of April 25, 1984, No. 42879 of the receipt of the same registry office on December 29, 1987, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant 1 was completed on the grounds of sale on December 28, 1987.

2. The parties' assertion

In fact, even though there was no agreement on the division of inherited property concerning each of the instant real estate between the deceased Nonparty 1’s inheritors including the Plaintiff, Defendant 1, without the consent of the heir including the Plaintiff, has forged the agreement on division, and has completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reason of the agreement division as joint ownership by Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 4, and Defendant 3, but actually completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant real estate after three months, despite the fact that the sales contract was not concluded between Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4. Since each of the above grounds for invalidation of the registration of ownership transfer, the Plaintiff asserts that the registration procedure for cancellation is sought for two-thirds shares of the Plaintiff, one of the deceased Nonparty 1’s successors, which are the inheritance shares ratio of the Plaintiff.

Defendant 1 claims that Defendant 1 purchased each of the instant real estate from Defendant 2, 3, and 4 after the deceased non-party 1 died, and that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit was extinguished since 10 years elapsed from the date of commencing the inheritance as a lawsuit claiming inheritance recovery.

3. Determination as to Defendant 1’s main defense (the plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 2, 3, and 4 is examined ex officio)

If, on the premise that it is a true inheritor with respect to inherited property, in cases where a claim for the transfer or cancellation of the registration of a real estate which is an inherited property is filed against a part of the co-inheritors who asserted the ownership of a share arising from the inheritance and only he/she inherited the property, if the claim that the ownership belongs to the cause of inheritance, regardless of the cause of the claim, the lawsuit shall be deemed a lawsuit for the recovery of inheritance under Article 999 of the Civil Act, and the claim for recovery of inheritance shall expire three years after the date of becoming aware of the infringement

In addition, in such case, the person who acquired the right of inherited property from the co-inheritors who acquired the right of inherited property from the title successor or only those who acquired the inheritance shall be the other party to the right of claim

With respect to the instant case, the Plaintiff’s claim was one of the co-inheritorss on April 15, 2005, and the Plaintiff’s claim was filed under the name of the Defendants on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer was sought for the cancellation only of the Plaintiff’s shares in inheritance due to the division of agreement. Accordingly, this part of claim is eventually called a lawsuit for recovery of inheritance. According to the facts acknowledged earlier, Nonparty 1, the inheritee and the Defendants died on April 25, 1984. The Defendants’ registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of the Defendants on October 30, 1987 due to the division of agreement. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s claim was made on April 15, 2005, which was more than 10 years thereafter, and the Plaintiff’s claim was made on April 15, 2005. Accordingly, this part of the lawsuit against the Defendants’ claim for recovery of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendants’ co-inheritors and that part of the lawsuit against the Defendants’ claim for recovery of ownership transfer was made under the Defendants’ agreement.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Termination of Appointment of Judge