1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are two of six children of the deceased C (Death on September 26, 2014, hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. The real estate indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was acquired on March 20, 2007 by the deceased. On December 21, 2012, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant, such as the purport of the claim, was completed on the ground that the instant real estate was purchased and sold on December 20, 2012 (hereinafter “the instant sale”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 3, purport of whole pleading

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. Since the registration of transfer of ownership in this case in the name of the defendant as to the real estate in the primary claim is invalid for the reason of the most trade, the defendant is liable to implement the procedure for cancellation of transfer of ownership in this case against the deceased.

B. Even if the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the Defendant for preliminary claim is lawful, it is reasonable to deem that the grounds for registration is not a sale, and the Defendant bears the duty to return a legal reserve of inheritance to the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to return the Plaintiff, as a legal reserve of inheritance, the real estate price of KRW 500,000,000,000 ( KRW 500,000,000,000) equivalent to KRW 41,666,666 ( KRW 1/6x1/2) equivalent to the market price of the instant real estate.

B. The registration titleholder shall be presumed to have acquired ownership through legitimate procedures and causes, in the event that the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to real estate, and the grounds for invalidation should be asserted and proved in the dispute.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da105215 Decided March 13, 2014, etc.). The Plaintiff asserted as grounds for invalidation of the ownership transfer registration of the instant case under the name of the Defendant that the instant transaction was the most trade, or that the substance thereof was a gift. However, the Plaintiff’s statement in subparagraphs 6 through 20 alone is that the instant transaction was the most trade, as seen earlier.