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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

A. On March 7, 2012, the Plaintiff filed an application for the change of the indication of the registered titleholder with the registry office of the owner ( Address: Gyeonggi Hawon-gun, Gyeonggi Hawon-gun) on the registry of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”). The pertinent registry office, etc. rejected the application for change of the indication of the registered titleholder on the ground that the data submitted by the applicant alone is insufficient to recognize the identity of the registered titleholder and the applicant.

B. Accordingly, on August 13, 2012, the Plaintiff raised an objection, and the decision of dismissal was revoked by the Jung-gu District Court 2012Hun-Ba6, the District Court (hereinafter “instant decision”) and the registrar received the Plaintiff’s application for registration of the said alteration and received a decision to execute registration in accordance with the purport thereof (hereinafter “instant decision”). The said decision arrived at the said registry on August 23, 2012.

C. Meanwhile, with respect to each of the instant land, G completed the registration of change of the indication of a registered titleholder that changed “C” to “G” as the registered titleholder’s name on September 7, 2012 received on September 7, 2012, and the registration of change of the indication of a registered titleholder that changed his/her address to “H of the Iron-gun, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant registration of change, etc.”) under Article 11590 of the same registry office as of September 7, 2012, and I completed the registration of change of the indication of a registered titleholder (hereinafter “instant registration of change, etc.”) on September 24, 2012, the receipt of the same registry office No. 12162, Sept. 24, 2012, as of September 3, 2012 (hereinafter “instant registration of change”).

Since then, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against G, the District Court 2013Ga61640, asserting that he/she himself/herself is a true owner of each of the instant lands, against G, seeking the cancellation of the instant alteration registration, etc., and the cancellation of the instant alteration registration, etc., but on May 2, 2014, lost the Plaintiff on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was a true owner of each of the instant lands, and accordingly, it was against it