2. C

3. D;

4. E.

5. F;

6. G.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. I will be children of J (Death in 1948). I died in around 1974, and I's children, K, E-Nam L, C-Nam.

B. On July 14, 1994, K obtained a guarantee from the guarantor, N, andO for the purchase of the instant real estate on February 13, 1970, under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership (Article 4502 of the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership; hereinafter referred to as the “Special Measures Act”), and registered the preservation of ownership as the registration office of the Changwon District Court (Article 1905 of the receipt of the registration office of the Changwon District Court).

C. K died on or around October 10, 25, 1998, and its heir was Defendant B, D, E, F, and G, the wife of the Defendant C and his children. Defendant B transferred the ownership registration as to the instant real estate as the receipt of the Changwon District District Court 19854 on October 25, 1998 on the ground of inheritance due to the consultation division on July 7, 200.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute; Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-1-3; the fact-finding with respect to the macro-market in this court; the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The instant real estate is owned by the I as a gift from his her son and is again donated to the Plaintiff, Samnam. However, since K, the Republic of Korea, obtained a registration of preservation of ownership by using a false letter of guarantee that he purchased it from his son, it should be cancelled in the registration of invalidation. Moreover, the registration of transfer of ownership in Defendant B, which was based on it, should also be cancelled.

B. Determination

The plaintiff's assertion is based on the premise that the registration of ownership preservation in the name of K on the real estate of this case is null and void, and thus, it should be viewed as to it.

A registration completed under the Act on Special Measures shall be presumed to correspond to the substantive legal relationship, and the presumption power of registration of initial ownership or registration of transfer shall not be reversed unless it is proved that a letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed under the Act on Special Measures is false or forged, or that a registration was not duly registered due to other reasons. Here, false letter of guarantee or confirmation refers to a letter of guarantee or confirmation that the substantive content of the change in rights is inconsistent with the truth. Even if a person who completed registration under the Act on Special Measures claims that he/she acquired rights in accordance with the letter of guarantee or confirmation is different from the fact, it is apparent that the registration under the Act on Special Measures cannot be completed under the said Act as the date of acquisition, or that the assertion is incomplete, or that there is no evidence that there is no possibility of presumption of registration completed under the Act on Special Measures, unless there are special circumstances, such as where it is obvious that the title of the above 20th anniversary of the date of acquisition, or that there is no evidence that there is a new statement of change in rights, such as the date of acquisition, 2000 days prior to the date of acquisition.

We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles. The fact that K has not purchased the instant real estate from J, 1, appears to have no dispute between the parties. However, the Defendant asserted that I had received the instant real estate from P, and that I donated the instant real estate to K, South Korea, to K. The instant real estate is likely to have been donated to I, South Korea, because there was a grave under the supervision of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, and there is a probable probability that I would have sold the instant real estate to K, i.e., I would have sold the instant real estate before birth, and gave testimony that Q, i.e., sold it to the Plaintiff that I would have paid the purchase price to the Plaintiff. In light of the fact that I would have seen that the instant real estate was not transferred to 3,00 square meters to 5,000 square meters of the instant real estate to 5,000 m2,000,0000,000,0000,000,000,00).

In addition, although the witness N testified to the effect that K was given a gift from I, it cannot be deemed that the presumption of registration alone is reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da2189 delivered on April 29, 2005, 205, 2005Da2189 delivered on April 29, 200).

Therefore, K's registration of preservation of ownership of the real estate of this case cannot be deemed null and void, and the plaintiff's assertion based on this premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed for all reasons.