A. The plaintiff is the father of defendant B.

B. On December 31, 1974, the network E completed the registration of transfer of ownership (hereinafter “registration of transfer of ownership of this case”) with respect to Defendant B’s land No. 5,931 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) due to the purchase and sale on December 28, 1974, as the receipt No. 16623 of the Kuyang-gu District Court, Goyang-gu, Goyang-gu, Seoul District Court (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

(c)

On October 29, 1987, the network E succeeded to the rights and obligations of the network E with shares of 3/7, 2/7, 2/7, 2/7 of each of the defendant, child F, and G who is his spouse.

[Grounds for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (which include all numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole theory of alteration (the plaintiff and defendant B) (the confession between the plaintiff and defendant C) under Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act

2. As to the claim against the defendant B

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) On December 28, 1974, the plaintiff purchased the real estate of this case from the deceased E, and due to tax issues, etc., the plaintiff completed the registration of this case in the name of defendant B, the third son of the plaintiff.

This constitutes a trust under the name of the third party and constitutes a registration invalid by the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”), and the sales contract entered into between the Plaintiff and the deceased E is still valid.

In order to preserve the right to claim the registration of transfer of ownership against Defendant C who succeeded to the rights and obligations of the network E, the Plaintiff shall seek the cancellation procedure against Defendant B by subrogation of Defendant C.

2) Defendant B’s assertion that the instant real estate was donated from the Plaintiff without compensation and acquired the ownership of the instant real estate.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim based on the premise that the plaintiff had entrusted the real estate of this case to the defendant B is without merit.

B. The evidence mentioned above and evidence Nos. 6, 8, as well as evidence No. 1.