1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale on February 26, 1970, No. 19778, which was received as of February 26, 1970, with respect to the Jeonju District Court Kim Jong-si 3,521 square meters (hereinafter “pre-sale land”).

B. Thereafter, the land before replotting was completed on August 28, 200 and the land was substituted with the land in this case. Meanwhile, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the land before replotting and the land in this case on the ground of donation made by the former District Court Kim Jong-dong Office No. 24903, Dec. 28, 191, which was received on December 28, 1991, by December 27, 1991.

【In the absence of a dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 (the contract of donation, and the plaintiff’s seal impressions are presumed to have been duly established as a whole due to the lack of dispute over the part concerning the plaintiff’s seal impressions. Accordingly, the plaintiff defense that this document was forged by the defendant, but the circumstances or evidence that the plaintiff was satisfe by itself is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff’s assertion,

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff donated the land before replotting to the Defendant.

However, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer of the land before replotting under the name of the defendant, by forging the relevant documents as if he/she donated the land before replotting with the Plaintiff’s seal imprint design.

After all, as the land before the land substitution was replaced by the land in this case due to the arable land rearrangement, the registration of the ownership transfer of the land in this case was completed again in the name of the defendant.

Therefore, since the ownership transfer registration in the name of the defendant with respect to the land of this case is null and void, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration.

(b) If the registration of ownership transfer has been completed with respect to the judgment real estate, not only the third party but also the transferor.