1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 3, 1980, the forest land of this case was registered for ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name, but on September 24, 1991, the forest land of this case was registered for ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name, which was a child on September 24, 1991.

Plaintiff

On June 8, 1994, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the defendant on the site of this case that was owned by the public auction.

B. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant to the effect that “The title trust was invalidated when the instant forest and land was held in title trust to the Defendant,” under this Court Decision 2012No. 47065, the Plaintiff brought a lawsuit against the Defendant to the effect that “The title trust was invalidated,” but the judgment against the Plaintiff was rendered on the ground that it is impossible to recognize the fact of title trust, and that the judgment became final and conclusive as it was, following the Supreme Court Decision 2012Na2150 and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da48173 Decided

(hereinafter referred to as “transfer Judgment”). [Grounds for recognition] The parties to a lawsuit do not have any dispute between them, as described in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, 7, and Eul’s Evidence No. 1 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff delegated the forest land and land of this case to the Defendant under the name of the Defendant, and cancelled the delegation, and sought implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership to the Defendant.

B. The delegation that entrusts the real estate name to a third party is distinguishable from the title trust under the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”).

3. The title trust under the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Name refers to the title trust of another person among the delegation. If a delegation contract that only entrusts the real estate name, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is permitted, separate from the title trust, the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Name, which prohibits in principle the title trust, will no longer be effective. Thus, the Plaintiff’s above premise that the delegation contract, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is valid.