1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 5, 2008, the area of 405 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Gyeonggi-gun B was divided into three parts: (a) C on August 5, 2008, and seven hundred square meters prior to subdivision (hereinafter “C land prior to subdivision”).

B. The land before subdivision was originally owned by the Plaintiff, and on November 25, 1989, the registration of ownership transfer was made to the Defendant on the 27th of the same month due to the donation on the said land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff expressed his intent of donation only to the Defendant with respect to Yangyang-gun C land (295 square meters) after division. Since the Defendant prepared a written contract to donate the entire C land before subdivision to the Defendant and completed the registration of ownership transfer including the instant land without the Plaintiff’s permission, the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant registration of transfer”) on the instant land is null and void.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of the transfer registration of this case to the plaintiff.

3. Where the registration of ownership transfer has been made, the person who registered the ownership shall not only be deemed to have acquired ownership from the third party, but also from the former owner through legitimate grounds for registration. Thus, in order to deny this by the plaintiff and to seek the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer by claiming the invalidity of the grounds for registration, the plaintiff shall be responsible to assert and prove the fact that the grounds

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da105215 Decided March 13, 2014, etc.). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s statement of health class back to the instant case and the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 5 (as the Plaintiff’s name of the said gift contract is recognized to be based on the Plaintiff’s seal, and the entire document’s authenticity is presumed to have been established). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s land C before subdivision to the Defendant on November 25, 1989.