Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff was the owner of 327 square meters in Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun.

B. Of the above land, 232 square meters was divided into E large 232 square meters on November 12, 1994 (hereinafter “instant E”). The Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership as the head of the Jeonju District Court’s Suwon District Court’s registration office on the ground of the acquisition of public land through consultation on October 19, 194 with respect to the instant land (hereinafter “acquisition of consultation on the public land of this case”) on October 19, 194.

C. As the instant land E (the land category is changed to a road on August 30, 1998), etc. was merged into the land of Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun, the Defendant owned on August 31, 1998, the land category of the said C was 848 square meters and the area was 848 square meters.

(hereinafter “instant land”). Of the instant land, part of the instant land C is 232 square meters in order to connect each point of the instant land indicated in the Appendix No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 1 among the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant did not consult with the Plaintiff or the person delegated authority by the Plaintiff in the process of acquiring the public land of this case, and there was no lack of sufficient amount of compensation to the Plaintiff, etc.

Since the procedure for acquiring public land of this case is unlawful and invalid, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancelling ownership transfer registration as to the part of the land of this case among the land of this case to the plaintiff, who is the owner of the land of this case.

B. Determination 1) Inasmuch as the ownership transfer registration on real estate has the ability to presume the right, it is presumed that it has been lawfully completed in its cause and procedure, barring any special circumstance. Therefore, barring any active assertion and proof of the grounds for registration in the dispute, it cannot be readily concluded that the registration is null and void solely on the ground that there is a lack of proof as to the grounds for registration by the titleholder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 197Do688, Jun.