1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the representative D of the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the instant forest land, the ownership transfer registration was completed on February 6, 193 in the deceased F (Death on July 15, 1964) and was not restored after the registration was destroyed due to the 625 incident. On March 20, 1995, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502) in the future of the defendant C on September 24, 2012, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on September 21, 2012 thereafter on September 24, 2012.

B. On March 15, 2003, 4 South-North net G died with eight children, including South-North D and Defendant C.

C. The plaintiff is a clan that has the net G as a joint ancestor.

【Ground of recognition】 The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2 and 3, each of 1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion G donated the instant forest land to the effect that eight children, including D and Defendant C, including the Plaintiff, were buried and owned by the deceased F. The Plaintiff’s assertion G donated the instant forest land to the effect that it would be used as a grave. The instant eight brothers and sisters, who received the donation, decided to register the instant forest land in the name of Defendant C’s sole name, and completed the registration of ownership preservation in the future of Defendant C by title trusting the remaining seven shares.

Since then, as the deceased clan died, the 8 brothers and sisters, including the defendant C, decided to donate the forest land of this case to the plaintiff clan.

However, while Defendant C had avoided the above obligation to transfer ownership, it was anticipated that the Plaintiff clan would file a lawsuit on the forest of this case, and concluded a false donation contract in collusion with Defendant B, who is an son, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of Defendant B.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant B is null and void as an anti-social order that actively participated in the act of conspiracy, false indication, or Defendant B's act of breach of trust.

Accordingly, with respect to Defendant B, the Plaintiff terminated the title trust against Defendant C.