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

A. The Plaintiff’s father is C, the father of the Defendant is D, and the father of D is E.

C and E are F’s siblings.

B. The registration of transfer of ownership was completed on the ground of sale on December 15, 1950 in the name of the network C in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Ownership of General Farmland (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), which was in force on May 21, 1965 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2.

On August 3, 1981, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant on May 15, 1981 due to the inheritance through consultation and division as to each real estate listed in [Attachment List Nos. 1 and 2].

C. After the deceased on October 5, 1971, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 27, 1970 in the name of G, C, H, I, J, D, and D as to the real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 3, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 6, 1971 in the name of G, C, H, I, I, and J as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 3 under D.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, evidence 1 to 2-1, 2, 3, evidence 5-1 to 3, Eul evidence 1, 3, 16, and 21, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Unless it is proven that the registration completed under the Act on Special Measures for Development of Ownership in the name of the defendant as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 and 2 is invalid, the presumption of ownership transfer registration shall not be broken unless it is proven that the registration completed under the Act on Special Measures for Development of Ownership is in accord with the substantive legal relationship and that the letter of guarantee or confirmation stipulated in the Act on Special Measures is false or forged,

At the time of December 15, 1950, the date of sale of the network C and the network D, as claimed by the Plaintiff, is not a situation where the network C can enter into a contract with the Seoul and Busan, but the transfer of ownership according to the Act on Special Measures since the network C and the network D are currently a professor in the same university.