1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The acceptance and alteration of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the plaintiff's new argument as to the main claim, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant B’s name is null and void in accordance with Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, and that such a sale contract constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy and thus null and void.

Where the registration of transfer of ownership of real estate has been completed, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership based on a legitimate cause of registration. Therefore, in the dispute of this, the reason for invalidation should be asserted.

(See Supreme Court Decision 92Da46059 delivered on May 11, 1993, etc.). In addition, the real estate registration itself is presumed to have been completed by legitimate grounds for registration from the fact that it exists formally. Although the registrant claims that the registrant had acquired the name of registration for reasons different from those recorded in the register, the presumption of registration itself cannot be said to have been broken even if such assertion is not acknowledged. Thus, even in such a case, in light of the above legal principles, it is held liable to prove the grounds for invalidation as alleged in the assertion that the registration was completed without cause (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da39526 delivered on September 30, 1997). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant B was completed by a title trust agreement or a false agreement, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.