1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance, except for the fact that “after the death of V” in the fourth part of the judgment of the first instance as “after the death of V, and the death of V’s spouse B,” and this part of the reasoning is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. At around September 1970, V purchased from AC land and above ground (hereinafter “original land”) from AC for KRW 450,000 in the purchase price.

AC purchased 400,00,000 won from the Z which owned the original land from the time of the Japanese occupation at the time of the Japanese occupation, and remodeled the original land at the time of 50,000 and sold it again to V.

The original land is the land that includes the first site of this case, and is divided into two parcels at the time of the implementation of the AKdong Partition rearrangement project, and one of them was the substitute land for the first site of this case.

Nevertheless, as for the first site of this case, the contents of the documents falsely entered in the register instead of the Z, which is the original owner of the land in 1968, are recorded in the register instead of the Z, which is the original owner of the land in 1968, the actual owner of the first site of this case is V.

B. The second site of this case is the part of the land substitution of the original land, which was obtained by paying KRW 1,796,430, around June 1979 at the time of the project for determining the land demarcation of AKdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-Dong, and adding part of the substituted land to the land development recompense land (AF).

Nevertheless, the defendant, instead of the owner of the second site in 1981, is recorded in the register of the owner of the second site, and the actual owner of the second site in this case is V.

C. Therefore, the defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership for the first and second sites of this case to the plaintiffs, who are the successors of V.

3. Determination

A. In a lawsuit seeking the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration, the Plaintiff’s real estate.