1. The defendant is based on the plaintiff's restoration of real estate stated in the separate sheet.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 27, 1998, a title trust agreement (1) C acquired ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”). However, around April 200, C received “Notice of Obligation to Dispose of Farmland” from the head of Si/Gun of Si/Gun of Si/Gu, stating that “I are unable to own the instant real estate within a certain period of time because I do not have the right to own the farmland.”

(2) On April 2001, C entered into a title trust agreement with D on the instant real estate (hereinafter “instant title trust”), and on April 12, 2001, the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate was completed on April 12, 2001.

After that, D cultivated from the real estate of this case, and sent two rice as rent to C each year.

B. Inheritance Relations (1) C died on January 28, 2009, and the Plaintiff, the wife of C, acquired C’s right to the instant real estate due to the agreement division of inherited property.

(2) D died on March 23, 2012, and the Defendant, the wife of D, completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate on April 13, 2012 due to inheritance by consultation and division.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the title trust agreement in this case is null and void, and the subsequent registration of ownership transfer is null and void. As such, the Defendant, who acquired the ownership of the instant real estate through an agreement on the division of inherited property, is obligated to implement the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name, to the Plaintiff who succeeded to the rights of the instant real estate C

(2) The Defendant’s assertion that the instant title trust agreement constitutes an act of anti-social order barring the provisions on the ownership and use of farmland stipulated in the Constitution and the Farmland Act by avoiding a disposal order under the Farmland Act. The instant transfer of ownership constitutes illegal consideration.