1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 14, 1981, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jeonnam-gun, 509 square meters (hereinafter “the land before annexation”) owned the network D, which is the Plaintiff’s father. On August 14, 1981, the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “the registration of ownership transfer”) was completed due to sale as of January 5, 1973 pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership (Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 1977; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

B. In accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502 of Nov. 30, 1992), the registration of ownership was completed in the name of the defendant on Oct. 11, 1993 with respect to the former Chonam-gun E-gun, the land at issue was combined on Oct. 21, 1995, and the land at issue prior to the merger was 869 square meters in the name of the defendant on Oct. 21, 1995.

C. The deceased on Nov. 17, 1947 and the deceased on Nov. 17, 1947, the deceased on Oct. 29, 1983, the deceased on Oct. 29, 1983, and the Plaintiff is one of the heirs as a child of the deceased F.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, 16, and 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the land prior to the instant merger was owned by the Plaintiff’s father, and the deceased F, the Plaintiff’s father, succeeded to it, and the heir, including the Plaintiff, succeeded to it. The Defendant, who did not purchase the land prior to the instant merger, purchased it, and completed the instant registration of ownership transfer without any legal ground. Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name should be cancelled.

B. The registration under the Act on Special Measures for Determination 1 is completed in accordance with the legitimate procedures prescribed in the same Act, and is presumed to be consistent with the substantive relationship. Therefore, if a party seeks to reverse the presumption, a letter of guarantee, which forms the basis of the registration, was forged or falsely prepared.

The burden of proving and proving that the registration was not legally registered for any other reason is to be reversed.