1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

Basic Facts

A. On October 25, 2016, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of a gift made on October 24, 2016 to Defendant C, an infant, for the instant real estate.

B. The establishment registration of the instant real estate was completed on March 14, 2018 on the ground of the contract to establish the mortgage on the same day, which consists of KRW 13,00,000 for the obligee D and the maximum debt amount of KRW 13,00.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. The original real estate in this case against Defendant B is owned by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff sold approximately fifty (50) parts of the instant real estate, other than the instant land portion, to Defendant B’s husband G, but Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on the entire real estate of this case.

From April 1, 1962, the Plaintiff occupied the instant part of land as an intention to cultivate and own it by creating a dry field and a dry field for bamboo trees from around April 1, 1962. It is deemed that the prescriptive acquisition on April 2, 1982, which passed twenty years thereafter, was completed.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the instant part of the land to the Plaintiff on the ground of the completion of acquisition by prescription.

B. As to Defendant C and D, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation by mutual conspiracy with Defendant C in order to evade the above obligation to transfer ownership.

Defendant C knowingly received the instant real estate by actively engaging in Defendant C’s breach of trust with knowledge of the foregoing circumstances, which constitutes a juristic act invalid under Article 103 of the Civil Act.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant C is deemed null and void due to the conspiracy, false representation, or breach of trust. Therefore, Defendant C has a duty to cancel the above registration to Defendant C.

On the other hand, Defendant D aiding and abetting the above collusion or breach of trust by Defendant B and C.