1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff was completed on September 4, 1979 for the reason that the pertinent real estate was reverted to rights, Jeonnam-gun, Jeonnam-gun (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On October 20, 1972, the Plaintiff and the State-owned property sales contract were concluded with respect to the instant real estate under the E’s name, and thereafter, on April 30, 1983, the Defendant applied for a change in the name of the purchaser of State property under the Defendant’s name.

C. As to the instant real estate under the name of the Defendant, the ownership transfer registration was completed on October 20, 1972 under the name of the Gwangju District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 12472 on May 19, 198, which was received on May 19, 198, under the name of the co-defendant B of the first instance court, under the name of the co-defendant B of the first instance court, as the registration of ownership transfer was received on June 5, 1997, and under the name of the co-defendant A of the first instance court, as the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 23, 2005 under the name of the co-defendant A of the first instance court (the receipt on March 23, 2005) and the ownership transfer was completed on March 23, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. 1) The employee engaged in the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) prohibits the Plaintiff’s acquisition of, or exchange with, state-owned property, and is null and void. Since F, who is a public official engaged in the affairs concerning state-owned property, did not sell the instant real estate to E, the above E purchases the instant real estate, and subsequently completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the Defendant’s name by forging the application for change of the name of the purchaser of state-owned property as if the Defendant purchased it from the above E, and the registration of transfer of ownership under the Defendant’s name is invalid. 2) When the Defendant’s assertion F was investigated by the Prosecutor’s Office in relation to the sale of state-owned property, the instant real estate is a legitimate procedure for E.