1. The defendant on August 8, 1986, as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the plaintiff, the Daegu District Court Seo-gu District Court's office of registration.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff is a person who has completed the registration of ownership transfer pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094), the defendant, along with Nonparty D, E, F, and G, completed the registration of ownership transfer claim under Article 6101 as to each of the above real estate on August 8, 1986, the Daegu District Court received the registration of ownership transfer claim under the 6101 as to each of the above real estate; the plaintiff, the defendant, the defendant, and the above D et al.; and ④ The remaining four persons other than the defendant among the above provisional right holders of the provisional registration in cooperation with the cancellation of the provisional registration on May 209.

In light of the above facts, since the plaintiff asserts that the above provisional registration was made only to prevent a voluntary disposition, and that there was no cause for registration, the defendant should assert and prove that there was a cause for registration. The defendant submitted a document to the effect that the registration of each of the above real estate in the name of the plaintiff should be cancelled due to the invalidation of the cause for registration without any assertion and proof, and that the above provisional registration was not present at the date of pleading held twice more, it is reasonable to deem that the above provisional registration was made with no reason.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation registration for shares of 1/5 of the provisional registration for each of the above real estate to the plaintiff.

2. On the part of the defendant's assertion, the defendant alleged that the registration of each of the above real estate in the name of the plaintiff was invalid because it was completed by abusing the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (No. 3094), but there is no evidence

The defendant's argument is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable.