The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The approximately 2400 persons residing in the same Ri was under the circumstances of Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-gun C.

Since then, the above land was divided into each land listed in the attached list.

B. On April 20, 1958, the Plaintiff’s pre-paid E died. The deceased’s head of the deceased and the deceased’s heir, F was the sole heir of Australia, and F died on January 25, 2003, and F was the heir of F, the Plaintiff and G.

C. As to each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”), the registration for transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant was completed on April 19, 201 as the receipt of No. 5562 on April 19, 201 and April 13, 2011.

[Recognitions] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s each real estate of this case succeeded to F, the father of the Plaintiff, by reason of the Plaintiff’s prior circumstance, E, and the Plaintiff inherited 1/2 shares due to F’s death.

However, on April 20, 1974, H made a registration of preservation of ownership on the Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do Forest C, which was the land prior to the division of each of the instant real property on April 20, 1974, without permission. He completed the registration of transfer of ownership based on the inheritance due to the consultation division on each of the instant real property due to the death of H, and the Defendant received a donation from I and completed the registration of transfer of ownership.

Therefore, since the registration of ownership preservation in H’s name is null and void, the registration of ownership transfer should be cancelled, and the registration of ownership transfer by the defendant to whom ownership is transferred from the former should also be cancelled, the plaintiff seeks against the defendant for the implementation of the registration of ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name with respect to 1/2 shares

B. It cannot be readily concluded that Defendant E and D, the assessment title of each land of this case, are the same person.

H, who is the defendant's father, is about each of the real estates in this case.