1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is 3 South Korea of the network D, and the defendant is the south of the network D, the south of the network E.

B. The 1812 square meters in Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) is the land substituted on February 18, 1976 by 427 square meters in return for the Frane-gun F (hereinafter “previous land”).

C. The network D completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 22, 1948 on the previous land owned by it on August 24, 1948.

The Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on March 6, 1962 pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Real Estate Rights (amended by Act No. 4502, Nov. 30, 1992; Act No. 4775, Aug. 3, 1994; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) with respect to the instant land on March 23, 1995.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant registration of transfer of ownership”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap’s evidence 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff, upon the Plaintiff’s death in Busan, ordered the Plaintiff’s instant land to receive a small fee from the Plaintiff’s model E, but completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Special Measures Act because the Defendant, who was the deceased E, did not purchase the instant land from the Plaintiff, was issued a false guarantee and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the false guarantee. Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer is invalid.

In addition, as alleged below, even if the Defendant received the instant land from the deceased D around 1962, the ownership transfer registration of the instant case was completed on March 23, 1995, which was ten years after the expiration of the statute of limitations for the claim for ownership transfer registration due to the said donation, and thus, is also null and void.

Therefore, the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant should be cancelled.

B. The instant land owned by Defendant D was substantially owned by the network D as the land that the network D entrusted the Plaintiff with the ownership transfer registration.

(l) the network;