The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. In the event there is a real estate registration, it is presumed that there exists a substantive legal relationship corresponding to it.

The presumption power of these registrations extends not only to the ownership of rights, but also to the cause and procedure of registration.

Where the former registered titleholder claims the registration of cancellation against the current registered titleholder by asserting that the registration of invalidation of cause is the registration of invalidation of cause, the third party without authority and the burden of proving that the registration was made by forging documents, etc. necessary for the registration is the former registered titleholder

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da18914 delivered on October 12, 1993, and Supreme Court Decision 94Da41010 delivered on May 9, 1995, etc.). Even if it is proved that a third party, other than the former registered titleholder, has harmed the registration of real estate, the presumption of registration alone does not change.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, each of the instant real estate was owned by the Plaintiff, and the registration of ownership transfer was made based on the investment in kind in the Defendant, which was established by D, etc. who is the husband of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant claiming that D had completed the registration of cancellation of each of the instant registrations, alleging that D has forged an investment in kind contract in the name of the Plaintiff on each of the instant real estate, an application for membership membership and a power of delegation necessary for the registration of ownership transfer, and that D had completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future with the certificate of

3. In light of the following circumstances, the lower court did not have the authority to conclude an investment-in-kind agreement with the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff with respect to each of the instant real estate, or to file an application for each

or documents necessary for filing each of the registrations in the name of the plaintiff.