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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the real estate originally owned by the Plaintiff. However, even though the Plaintiff did not have donated the instant real estate to the Defendant on June 20, 1972, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the basis of a false letter of guarantee or confirmation under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer (Act No. 3094, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), which was in force on December 4, 1980, based on which the Defendant had completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed without any cause.

B. The presumption of the transfer registration shall not be broken unless it is proved that the registration completed under the Act on Special Measures for Markets is in line with the substantive legal relationship, and that the letter of guarantee or confirmation under the Act on Special Measures is false or forged, or that the registration was not duly registered due to other reasons.

Therefore, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, including the witness C’s testimony, is insufficient to deem that the presumption of transfer of ownership of this case, which was made in accordance with the Act on Special Measures, has been broken, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.