1. The defendant is based on the restoration of real name with respect to the 826 square meters in Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun, the plaintiff.

Basic Facts

In accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) with respect to the land of 826 square meters in Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun (hereinafter “instant land”), the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 20, 1981 from D to E on March 6, 1971.

E Deceased on February 12, 1992, the wife of E, G, H, I, J, K, L, etc. succeeded to E’s property. On May 27, 1993, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on February 12, 1992 due to a consultation division.

The Defendant, a F’s birth, received the decision of provisional disposition on August 20, 199 to prohibit the transfer of ownership as the preserved right by Daegu District Court 99Kadan36065 on the land of this case, and completed the registration of provisional disposition on August 21, 199.

In addition, on August 21, 1999, the registration of ownership transfer was completed for M future trading, and M was deceased, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 10, 2002 with 1/3 shares in the plaintiff, N, andO on September 8, 2001. As for N andO's shares, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 12, 2007 for N andO's shares as the gift was made on March 12, 2007.

On the other hand, the defendant filed a lawsuit against F in Daegu District Court No. 2003Kadan104842 against F to seek implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the instant land. The defendant asserted that F, as the representative of F's children and the representative of J, agreed to donate the instant land in the name of J to the plaintiff on June 6, 1998, as long as the J died on August 22, 2000, F, a property heir of J, is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the instant land.

On December 10, 2003, the above court held that F did not submit a written answer, but did not hold a favorable judgment by non-drawing.