DD City seizure of the above land is legitimate, so the plaintiff's claim is legitimate.

Although it is alleged to the effect that it is unfair, the Korean legal system does not recognize public confidence in the registration.

not, even if the bona fide third party has trusted and traded the registration, the registration shall be made as such.

Since acquisition of rights cannot be recognized, the above defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Thus, each claim of the plaintiff is justified, and all of them are accepted.

A. Defendant KimA: (a) the transfer of ownership completed on November 24, 1987 by OOOOOO in the District Court OO branch;

B. Defendant KimB is the ownership transfer registration that was completed by the OOO on July 13, 1988 by the above OOB. Defendant Gangnam-A shall implement each procedure for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration completed by the OOOOO on January 31, 1989.

2. As to the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration listed in Section 1(c) of the order with respect to the real estate mentioned in Section 1(1) of the order, Defendant AAA corporation, BB corporation,CC bank, and DD corporation, each consent is expressed. 3. Costs of lawsuit are borne by each party.

The registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership as stated in paragraph (3) of the same Article shall have a duty to express his/her consent.

2. Determination as to Defendant D's assertion

In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including additional numbers) and the purport of the entire arguments, the land listed in the order No. 1 is originally owned by the plaintiff. This is the fact that this is the fact that this Rule, while holding a tax official, completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of defendant KimA by forging by forging documents related to the change of the purchaser's name of State property, as described in the order No. 1 (A). After that, the registration of ownership transfer has been completed in sequence as described in the order No. 1 (1) of the above land. After the registration of ownership transfer was completed in relation to the above land, the fact that the defendant Gangnam completed the registration of attachment and provisional attachment as to the above land. According to the above facts, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of defendant KimA is invalid because it was completed by forged documents, and thus, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of defendant Kim Jong-A is invalid.

Therefore, Defendant KimA, KimB, and KangCC have a duty to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership as described in paragraph (1) of the order completed with respect to the above land, and the remainder of the Defendants.