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

A. On September 14, 1978, the plaintiff and the defendant's father C purchased the land of this case, and the plaintiff and the defendant were owned with 1/2 of each of the 1/2 of the child suffering physical inconvenience and completed the registration of transfer of share ownership.

B. As to the instant land, the Defendant, after completing the registration of transfer of ownership in its own future, has moved to a nearby country and has cultivated the instant land from that time to that time.

C. However, the same year as of July 2, 2001 on the Plaintiff’s share of the instant land

6. 27. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the defendant's future on the grounds of sale.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 4-10, Eul evidence 5-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. By November 1, 1999, the Plaintiff asserted that, even though he had been aware of the circumstances, he had been liable to the Plaintiff by forging documents in the name of the Plaintiff, he had committed an act of forging documents in the name of the Plaintiff and caused the Plaintiff to be liable for the debt. However, the Defendant believed that the Defendant, who was well aware of such circumstances, would transfer the shares in the instant land to the Plaintiff, would return the shares later, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to his shares to the Defendant, which was based on a false agreement or a title trust agreement, and thus, is null and void. The Plaintiff sought that the Defendant implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the restoration of authentic names with respect to each one-

B. Determination 1) The mere fact that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s payment details of the purchase price against the Plaintiff was not clearly revealed is insufficient to recognize that the sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the one-half share of the instant land was concluded with a false agreement or that a title trust agreement was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the said share, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it as follows.