1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Although the land of this case was owned by the network D, the plaintiff et al.'s purport of the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant filed a registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter "registration of ownership transfer of this case") pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (hereinafter "Special Measures Act"), along with a false guarantee on June 15, 1994, and at present, it prevents the plaintiff et al., the heir of the network D, et al. from using the land of this case by establishing hardware as stated in the purport of the claim.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation registration of the ownership transfer registration of this case to the plaintiff, etc. and remove the above hardware.

2. Since registration under the Act on Special Measures for Determination is presumed to be completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed in the same Act, it is presumed that the registration is in accord with the substantive relationship. Thus, if it has been proven that the person demanding the cancellation of the registration has the burden of proof, and that the substantive contents of a guarantee or a written confirmation, which forms the basis of the registration, are not true, the presumption power of registration may be deemed to have been reversed.

(2) On December 26, 1995, the Plaintiff submitted evidence Nos. 10 through 20 as evidence to the effect that the real contents of the guarantee or confirmation, which served as the basis for the registration of transfer of ownership, are not true, as to the instant case in light of the above legal principles, and the Plaintiff submitted evidence Nos. 10 through 20, which is the evidence to the effect that the substantial contents of the guarantee or confirmation, which served as the basis for the registration of transfer of ownership, are not true. However, the evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the evidence alone proves that the substantial contents of the guarantee or confirmation, which served as the basis for the registration of transfer of ownership, are

Rather, the Plaintiff et al. did not file a complaint against the Defendant or file a lawsuit against the Defendant even though he became aware of the registration around 1995, immediately after the registration of ownership transfer was completed.