1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this part is as stated in the part of “1. Basic Facts”, except for the case where “C” under Section 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance as “L”. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion and L had agreed with D on October 4, 2013 on the instant real estate as indicated in the separate agreement, and completed the registration of the instant real estate to the Defendant, who is the person designated by D under the said agreement, on October 30, 2013.

However, since D does not properly implement the above agreement, the plaintiff intends to cancel the above agreement on the ground of D's default of obligation.

On the other hand, the registration of this case is null and void by Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, since D has nominal trust to the defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, as a co-owner of the instant real estate, seeks the cancellation of the registration of this case, which is null and void.

(2) The defendant's assertion is a legitimate owner who concluded a sales contract for the instant real estate with the plaintiff and L with the introduction of D, and completed the registration of the instant real estate due to this reason. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

B. As seen earlier, the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 4, 2013 with respect to the instant real estate on the ground of sale and purchase on October 4, 2013 by the Plaintiff and L from the Defendant is presumed to have been acquired based on a legitimate ground for registration as well as the third party, since the registration titleholder is presumed to have been acquired on the ground that, if the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the instant real estate, the registration titleholder is presumed to have been formally existing on the part of himself/herself as well as on the third party.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044 Decided January 10, 2013). However, the instant case where all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff was integrated.