1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be acknowledged as either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the whole pleadings in the entries in Gap evidence No. 1-1-4 and No. 2.

According to the Gu’s land cadastre, the land of this case was transferred to G on September 23, 1946 through E and F, since C received the assessment on December 12, 1912 by December 2, 1912.

B. Since then, registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “registration of preservation of ownership in this case”) was completed on November 18, 1980 under the old Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) by Cheongju District Court No. 16598 on November 18, 1980.

C. Meanwhile, G died on April 1952, and the Plaintiff is a son of G.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant purchased the land of this case, but the statement on the circumstance does not coincide with the objective circumstances, and there is no evidence that the defendant purchased the land of this case. Thus, the registration of ownership preservation of this case should be cancelled since it is inevitable to view that the registration of ownership preservation of this case was completed falsely.

B. Since the registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for Determination is presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship, the party seeking the reversal of such presumption was prepared or forged by falsity a letter of guarantee or confirmation under the Act on Special Measures for Determination.

The burden of proof to reverse the presumption of the registration should be proved to the extent that the substantive content of the letter of guarantee or written confirmation, which served as the basis of the registration, is not true. Unless there is such proof, the presumption of registration is not reversed.

. The above.