1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the plaintiff's son and woman of D, the owner in the forestry register of the forest of this case, and one of the co-inheritors of D, who succeeded to one third of the above forest of this case.

However, the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership of the forest of this case illegally using the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate, which was in force in around 2006 (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”). Since it is an illegal registration based on a false guarantee certificate and is null and void, it should be cancelled as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. The person assessed on the real estate is separate, where the registration of initial ownership was made under the Act on Special Measures for the Management of Real Estate.

Even in cases where a registration is made in the name of another person prior to the registration titleholder’s land cadastre, such registration is presumed to have been completed in accordance with the legitimate procedures prescribed in the Act on Special Measures and in conformity with the substantive legal relationship. Therefore, a person who intends to seek cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership made under the Act on Special Measures shall assert and prove that the title titleholder was not duly made for other reasons, regardless of whether the certificate of guarantee and confirmation document prescribed in the Act on Special Measures was falsely prepared or forged or forged.

In addition, registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures is permissible not only in the case of direct transfer from a person who owns land cadastre but also in the case of transfer by a third party. Thus, even if the name of a seller or the date of purchase in the above letter of guarantee or written confirmation is different from the actual one, it cannot be said that the legal presumption of its registration has been broken, and the nominal owner of registration of preservation in the course of a lawsuit where disputes over the falsity of a letter of guarantee, etc. are raised, the transferor or the previous transferor