1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (Seoul) owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet 1 and 2 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) from the pro-friendly network D on April 10, 1974.

B. As to each land of this case, each transfer registration under the name of the defendant was made on September 4, 1995 on the grounds of sale as of September 1, 1995.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that each of the instant lands belongs to the Plaintiff’s ownership, but E and its agent F are not entitled to represent the Plaintiff, thereby forging a sales contract under the Plaintiff’s name by stealing the Plaintiff’s seal imprint, concluding a sales contract between the Defendant and the Defendant, and completing the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name. The registration under the Defendant’s name is null and void, and thus, should

B. The judgment, however, the real estate registration is presumed to have been completed by legitimate grounds for registration from the fact that it exists formally, and the registration is held liable to assert and prove the grounds for invalidation on the part of the assertion that the registration has been completed without any grounds for invalidation.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da39526 delivered on September 30, 1997). With respect to each of the instant lands, the fact that each of the instant lands was registered on September 4, 1995 by reason of sale as of September 1, 1995 is recognized as above.

Therefore, the transfer of ownership is presumed to have been completed by legitimate grounds for registration, and the plaintiff who claims that the registration was completed without any grounds for registration shall be liable to assert and prove the grounds for invalidation.

According to each of the evidence Nos. 5, 6 (including paper numbers), and 1 through 3, the defendant is not the plaintiff on October 20, 1994 but the land of several parcels, including each of the land of this case, from F on behalf of the plaintiff Eul on October 20, 1994.