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

A. The Plaintiff’s registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of 1822 square meters prior to Gyeongcheon-gun, Sejongcheon-gun (hereinafter “instant land”). However, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Defendant on September 11, 1980 on the ground of sale as of January 2, 1968.

B. D died on September 7, 1959, and co-inheritors, including the Plaintiff, succeeded to D’s rights and obligations.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-1 to 3, 4-1 to 4, 5, and 6-1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D died on September 7, 1959. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale as of January 2, 1968 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094) (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), using a false certificate as if the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from the surviving D. As such, the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name is null and void.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff, as co-inheritors of D, can preserve the land of this case, sought cancellation of the ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendant.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the land was owned by E, the Defendant’s father, but the Defendant’s wife died on May 22, 1957, and thereafter died on June 5, 1957, and the Defendant, the grandchild, succeeded to the land by proxy.

However, the plaintiff's attached D falsely prepared a sales contract and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant on September 11, 1980 by mutual agreement with the plaintiff, etc.

Therefore, the transfer of ownership under the name of the defendant is legitimate and effective.

3. Determination

A. Since registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Law is presumed to be consistent with the substantive legal relationship, a party seeking the reversal of such presumption has prepared a false letter of guarantee or confirmation under the above Act, which served as the basis of the registration.

(b).