1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the land owned by the Plaintiff, which completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 28, 1974 due to the sale by the Plaintiff on December 8, 1974.

However, as if the Plaintiff sold the land before subdivision to the Defendant, the Defendant drafted a false document and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant, which was based on sale on November 2, 1978.

After that, the Defendant was merged with the land prior to the division of 105 square meters out of E 337 square meters in Ansan-si, Dong-si, and the said land was re-merged with C and became a C large scale of 1912 square meters.

After that, the Defendant divided the area of 21 square meters into the above land, and thus, the area of the C site in Ansan-si was 1891 square meters at the present time.

(A) The Plaintiff owns the part (A) part of the land attached to the annexed drawing, which successively connects each point of the following subparagraphs, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 1 of the land after the division (hereinafter “instant land”). Thus, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the restoration of the real name with respect to the instant land, on the other hand, as the land is owned by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. If the registration of transfer of ownership has been completed, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership by legitimate grounds for registration. Thus, in order for the plaintiff to deny this and to seek the cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership by claiming the invalidation of the grounds for registration, the plaintiff is responsible to assert and prove the facts constituting the grounds for invalidation.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). (B)

The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant completed the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case by forging documents, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

C. Rather, in full view of each of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 3 above, the defendant in this case.