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

However, in light of the fact that Defendant B appears to have donated the instant land from mother G in around 1965, unlike the above grounds for registration, it is reasonable to deem that a letter of guarantee under the Act on Special Measures for the Ownership Transfer Registration, which is the basis for the ownership transfer registration that Defendant B completed with respect to the instant land, was falsely prepared or forged. As to the instant land, the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant B’s name should be cancelled as the registration invalidation of the cause for invalidation, and each registration of ownership transfer under Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E’s name should also be cancelled.

On the other hand, the deceased H, the original owner of the instant land (hereinafter “H”) donated the instant land to the deceased I (hereinafter “I”) who is the Chokman. On February 19, 1973, I sold the instant land to the Plaintiff’s husband’s her husband’s J.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, on behalf of each of the successors of I and H, seeks implementation of each of the registration procedures for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, respectively, as stated in the purport of the claim regarding the instant land.

2. If the result of the determination of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 9, and the fact-finding with the new Military Service of this Court is added, the defendant Eul's letter of guarantee stating that "the purchase of the land of this case was made from H on May 11, 1970" from the guarantor K, L, and M on February 18, 1993, is "No. 9," and "the guarantee certificate of this case".

After completing the registration of ownership transfer as stated in the purport of claims with respect to the land of this case, each of them is as stated in the purport of claims in the name of Defendant C, Defendant D, and Defendant E with respect to the land of this case.