1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

According to the evidence Nos. 2 and 4 evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including a number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the ownership transfer of land of 6420 square meters in Gyeongnam-do, Gyeongnam-do (hereinafter “instant land”) is registered in the name of the Plaintiff’s increase in the Plaintiff’s transfer of ownership in D, a copy of the Plaintiff’s increase in ownership. On August 18, 1981, E, as the Defendant’s attached to the Defendant on July 5, 1968, and on September 16, 2019, the fact that the ownership transfer was registered due to inheritance due to the division on March 8, 2019 is recognized.

The plaintiff actually succeeded to the land of this case with F and A, and even if the plaintiff's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's 's ''' was omitted, the defendant's 's 's 's ''' stolen some of the tax payment receipts and ''s '''s ''' ''' ''' '''' ''''' ''''''''''' 's 's 's 's 's 's ''

The argument is asserted.

In a case where the ownership has been completed under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate, the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of General Farmland, the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land, and the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land, the registration shall be legally completed in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Act and shall be presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship. Therefore, in order to reverse such presumption, it shall be asserted and proved that the letter of guarantee under the Act on Special Measures, such as the Act was forged or falsely prepared, or that the certificate was not duly registered for other reasons (Supreme Court Decision 97Da19571 delivered on October 10, 1997).