A. Whether a request for cancellation of ownership transfer registration made by forging a document as if it was distributed under the Farmland Reform Act constitutes a lawsuit for recovery of inheritance

B. Even if a person who is not an inheritor claims that he/she is the inheritor, or one of the co-inheritors claims that he/she is a sole inheritor, if there is no infringement of the inheritance right, whether it cannot be deemed that he/she is a reference inheritor in

C. Whether the plaintiffs and the non-party co-inheritors claimed cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant against the whole real estate by asserting that they are sole successors, and thus, the plaintiffs' right to inheritance was infringed

(d) Where farmland purchased by the State under the Farmland Reform Act is returned to the original owner under the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects;

(e) Where one co-owner becomes final and conclusive to dismiss a request for cancellation of registration of ownership transfer with respect to the co-owned property, whether the other co-owner can seek cancellation of the co-owner's share as an act of preservation;

A. The Plaintiff’s cause of claim does not seek cancellation of the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant on the ground that the Defendant is the original owner of the real estate, but rather, if the Defendant, despite the fact that the real estate was distributed pursuant to the Farmland Reform Act, seeks cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant by forging a document as if the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant, thereby forging the document as if the repayment was completed, and thus, it does not constitute a lawsuit for

B. In a lawsuit for the recovery of inheritance, a title inheritor who becomes the other party refers to a person who infringes on the inheritance rights of a true heir by means of possession of all or part of the inherited property by referring to the appearance that reliance on the property inheritor is, or referring to the inheritor, and even if a person other than the inheritor claims himself/herself as his/her heir, or one of the co-inheritors claims himself/herself as his/her sole heir, it cannot be deemed as a title inheritor referred to in the lawsuit for recovery of inheritance, unless there is any other infringement on the inheritance rights.

C. Although the Nonparty merely succeeded to the real estate jointly with the Plaintiffs, even if he claimed that he was a sole inheritor and claimed cancellation of the ownership transfer registration made in the name of the Defendant for the entire real estate, it cannot be deemed that the Nonparty infringed the Plaintiffs’ inheritance rights.

(d) If the land is deemed to fall under a non-self-owned farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, that land should be naturally purchased from the Government in accordance with the enforcement of the same Act; however, farmland purchased from the State but not distributed at the time of the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects shall be reverted to the ownership of the original owner, determined not to be distributed simultaneously with the enforcement of the same Act, except the land to be distributed to the farmer registered or confirmed to be State-owned under paragraph 1

E. The co-owner of a real estate is an act of preserving the jointly owned property and can seek the cancellation of the registration for invalidation of the cause of the jointly owned property. However, in a case where the non-party, one of co-owners, participates in a lawsuit filed by a third party against the defendant against the defendant, and such real estate is wholly owned by himself/herself, and the registration for the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant, which was completed with respect to such real estate, was claimed for the cancellation of the registration, but the claim was dismissed and confirmed, the non-party is placed in a position not to seek the cancellation of the registration for the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendants against the other defendant, who purchased part of the share in the real estate from the defendant after the conclusion of the fact-finding proceedings in the final and conclusive judgment, based on res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment, even if the plaintiffs shared the real estate with the non-party, the claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendants cannot be

(b)Article 99 of the Civil Code; Article 2(d) of the Act on Special Measures for Arrangement of Farmland Reform Projects; Article 265 of the Civil Code; Articles 202 and 204 of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Decision 86Da1407 delivered on June 23, 1987 (Gong1987, 1208) 91Da2790 delivered on November 8, 1991 (Gong1992, 81) 92Da18085 delivered on September 25, 1992 (Gong1992, 2991) B. Supreme Court Decision 92Da7955 delivered on May 222, 1992 (Gong192, 1984), 93Da2490 delivered on March 11, 1994 (Gong194Sang, 1171) Da. Supreme Court Decision 87Da3168 delivered on April 25, 198 (Gong198, 197) 198Da48284 delivered on April 28, 197)

Plaintiff 1 and six others, plaintiffs et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellee and one other

Defendant 1 and 7 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellee-appellant

Supreme Court Decision 91Da12837 delivered on July 12, 1991

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na36217 delivered on June 26, 1992

The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants as to a share of 21/75 square meters in Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) and 904 square meters shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Seoul High Court.

All remaining appeals by the defendants are dismissed, and all costs of appeal against this part shall be assessed against the defendants.

The Defendants’ grounds of appeal are examined (the grounds of appeal on the supplemental appellate brief submitted after the lapse of the period for submitting the appellate brief are examined to the extent that it supplements the grounds of appeal).

1. On the third ground for appeal

According to the records, the plaintiffs' cause of the claim does not seek cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in the above defendant's name on the ground that the defendant 1 is the title successor of the non-party 1, who was the original owner of the Gangnam-gu Seoul ( Address omitted) and 904m2 (hereinafter the "real estate of this case"), but rather, the above defendant forged a document as if he completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the above defendant's name by forging a document as if he was distributed the real estate of this case and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the above defendant's name despite the fact that he did not receive a distribution under the Farmland Reform Act, and thus seeking cancellation of the above registration and the registration of transfer of ownership in the remaining defendants' name based thereon. Thus, this does not constitute a lawsuit for recovery of inheritance (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu

In addition, in a lawsuit for recovery of inheritance, the title inheritor who becomes the other party refers to a person who infringes on the real heir's right to inheritance by means of possession of all or part of the inherited property by referring to the appearance of reliance on the status of the heir, or the heir's possession of the inherited property. Even if a person other than the heir claims himself/herself as his/her heir, or one of the co-inheritors claims as his/her sole heir, it cannot be deemed a title inheritor as referred to in the lawsuit for recovery of inheritance (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da7955 delivered on May 22, 1992). Thus, in this case, even though Nonparty 2 only succeeded to the real property of this case jointly with the plaintiffs, even if he/she claims it as his/her sole heir, it cannot be deemed that the above non-party 2 infringed on the plaintiff's right to inheritance, and it does not need further be viewed as the premise that the above non-party 2 infringed on the plaintiff's right to inheritance.

2. On the first ground for appeal

According to the records, since the real estate of this case is recognized to have been classified into non-self-owned farmland at the time of the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, it should be viewed that the real estate of this case was naturally purchased from the government according to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act. Thus, it is erroneous that the court below did not have any evidence to recognize that the real estate of this case was purchased

However, even if farmland is purchased from the State due to the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, the land not distributed at the time of the enforcement of the Act on Special Measures for the Adjustment of Farmland Reform Projects shall be reverted to the original owner, with the exception of the land to be distributed to farmers registered or confirmed as state-owned under Article 2 (1) of the same Act, and shall not be distributed at the same time with the enforcement of the same Act (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu3168, Apr. 25, 198). Accordingly, according to the records, since the real estate in this case was not distributed, and there is no registration or confirmation of the cultivator, the real estate in this case shall be reverted to the original owner. Accordingly, the court below rejected the Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiffs lost their ownership of the real estate in this case by the enforcement of the Farmland Reform Act, and there is no reason to dispute this point.

3. On the fourth ground for appeal

The court below rejected all of the above arguments on the grounds that it is hard to believe that the above non-party 3 occupied the real estate of this case as alleged above and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it in light of other evidence in the court below's reasoning, and the court below rejected all of the above arguments since the non-party 3 and the defendant 1 occupied the real estate of this case after the non-party 3 died on or around December 1949 or around September 28, 1950, the non-party 1, who was succeeded to it and became an ombudsman, acquired the prescription (acquisition by prescription), or the above defendant occupied the real estate of this case for 10 years from April 29, 1971 upon the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant 1 (acquisition by prescription) and acquired it by prescription (acquisition by prescription). Upon examining related evidence in the records, the court below's aforementioned measures are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence such as the lawsuit.

4. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that since the registration of transfer of ownership in the names of the plaintiffs and non-party 2 was invalid because the real estate was jointly owned by the plaintiffs and non-party 2, and the registration of transfer of ownership in the names of the defendants was completed for the above real estate, the plaintiffs' claims in this case seeking the implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration are all reasonable. Since the above judgment of the court below is a co-owner of the real estate in this case

In principle, co-owners of real estate are entitled to seek cancellation of all of the registration invalidation of the co-ownership of the above co-ownership as an act of preserving the co-ownership. However, in this case, the non-party 2 participated in the lawsuit (Seoul District Court 75Gahap245 case) brought against the defendant 1 (Seoul District Court 75Gahap764 case), and filed a claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of defendant 1, which was made with respect to the above real estate, by asserting that the registration invalidation of the ownership transfer registration is invalid, but the claim was dismissed. The appeal by the appellate court on March 29, 197, was dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 27, 197, and the non-party 2 cannot be seen as being subject to cancellation of the above share ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff 1 and the above defendant 2's claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration in the name of the plaintiff 2 as the above non-party 4's claim for cancellation of ownership.

Therefore, the court below's acceptance of the claim of this case against the above non-party 2's share in the real property of this case constitutes an unlawful act of misunderstanding the legal principles as to the scope of the act of preservation of jointly owned property or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, and such an unlawful act is obvious that the judgment of the court below affected the part against the defendants as to the above non-party 2

Furthermore, as determined by the court below, the above real estate was originally owned by Nonparty 1 as to the above portion of the real estate in this case. However, the above Nonparty 1 died on December 21, 1932 and reverted to Nonparty 6, who was his father. According to the records, the above Nonparty 6 was dead on May 8, 1940 after having left Plaintiff 1, Plaintiff 2, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 5, and Nonparty 7, and the above Nonparty 7 died on October 20, 1960. The above Nonparty 7 was deceased on October 20, 1960, and was his father, and was alive by Nonparty 8. The above Nonparty 8 died on May 28, 1963, and the above shares were owned by Nonparty 2, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 5 (the above shares inherited from Nonparty 6, Nonparty 2, Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 2, and Nonparty 5-6 (the inheritance shares inherited from Nonparty 6).

5. As such, the part of the judgment of the court below against the defendants against the 21/75 shares, which are the part against the defendants against the 21/75 shares of the non-party 2's shares in the real estate of this case, i.e., the part against the defendant 1 with respect to the 21/75 shares in the real estate of this case, and the part against the other defendants with respect to 31.61/61 shares (113.075/904.6 x 21/75) of the same real estate, shall be reversed and remanded, respectively, and all remaining appeals by the defendants shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal against this part shall be assessed against the losing

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)