1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. F had children, such as G and H, under his chain, and the Plaintiff is the children of H, and I is the children of G.

B. The F completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 10, 1937 with respect to the real estate Nos. 1 and 2, and H completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 18, 1970.

B. On August 8, 1984, I completed the registration of initial ownership on October 10, 1974, in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), with respect to real estate Nos. 1 and 2 on August 8, 1984.

(However, the area of the second real estate was originally 22,314 square meters, but a part of it was divided in around 1993 and became the same as the present area).

Defendant B, the wife of I, completed the registration of ownership transfer on March 25, 1998 with respect to the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 by agreement and division, and Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer on May 9, 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion F donated Nos. 1 and 2 real estate to the Plaintiff’s Ha, and the I obtained a false letter of guarantee or a false certificate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the Special Assistance Act.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of I for the first and second real estate and the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendants based thereon should be cancelled.

B. Unless it is proven that the registration completed under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Ownership of Ownership is presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship, and that the letter of guarantee or confirmation stipulated under the Act on Special Cases is false or forged, or that the registration was not duly registered due to other reasons, the presumption power of ownership transfer registration is not reversed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da33775, Oct. 27, 2000). The Plaintiff’s assertion is admissible as evidence consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion.