The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, determined that the establishment registration of the instant land close in the future of the Defendant, the joint purchaser of the instant land, the ownership transfer registration of which was completed in the future, had an internal share in the instant land, was completed to guarantee the Defendant’s right to claim for future conditional damages or the right to claim for restitution of unjust enrichment that the Defendant would have against the Plaintiff, if the instant land is infringed on the Defendant’s interest in the instant land due to such reasons as enforcement by the agricultural

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the facts against the rules of evidence and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal principles on title trust and collateral security claims, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 3, if a third party is involved in the act of disposal, not by the former registration titleholder, but by the latter, if the latter party is the representative of the former registration titleholder, the registration of the former registration titleholder is presumed to have been lawfully made even if the latter party is alleged to be the former registration titleholder, and thus, the former registration titleholder claiming the cancellation of the registration on the ground that the registration is null and void, that is, he did not have the authority to represent the third party.

or a third party shall bear the burden of proving the invalidity of the registration document of the former registration titleholder, such as the forgery of the registration document.

(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da18914 delivered on October 12, 1993). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant’s husband D, who was the husband, forged the registration document, such as a mortgage agreement under the name of the Plaintiff.

The above legal principles and records.