1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. As to the Plaintiff, with respect to the size of 1,597 square meters prior to Jinju-si:

A. Defendant B.

1. Basic facts

A. Registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter “registration of preservation of this case”) was made on May 6, 1965 in the name “E and Jinyang-gun Qu (hereinafter “ Qu”) with respect to the instant land (hereinafter “instant land”) 1,597 square meters prior to Jin-si, Jin-si.

B. On October 1, 2007, Defendant B completed the registration of change of the indication of a registered titleholder (hereinafter “the registration of change of this case”) under Article 52478, which was received on October 1, 2007, and completed the registration of change of the indication of a registered titleholder (hereinafter “the registration of change”). On November 19, 2013, Defendant B’s changed address of Defendant B (hereinafter “Usan-dong-gu R”), which

C. Defendant B donated the instant land to Defendant C, and Defendant C completed the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “instant transfer registration”) under receipt No. 68458, Oct. 31, 2014, which was received on October 31, 2014 from the Changwon District Court.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that “E and Jinyang-gun F” indicated in the preservation registration of the instant case indicates the Plaintiff’s net M, not Defendant B, and the Plaintiff’s heir inherited the instant land from the network M., so the owner of the instant land is the Plaintiff.

However, Defendant B had completed the registration of change of this case as if he was the owner of the land of this case using the Plaintiff’s father’s name and name, and donated the land of this case to Defendant C. Since the registration of change of this case and the registration of transfer of this case are both null and void, it should be cancelled

3. In full view of the following facts, the following facts are acknowledged, taking into account the following: Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, 12 through 20, Gap evidence No. 6-1, 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings:

① The Plaintiff’s assistance is K with the network, and the Plaintiff’s father is the network M.

② The old land cadastre (Evidence 2) as to the instant land is indicated as possessing the instant land in sequence S and E in sequence.

③ According to the old land cadastre (No. 2) as to the instant land, the owner S’s address is around 1937.