1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased on April 23, 1985, and the deceased on his/her property transferred to the plaintiff, who is his/her father, of the South-North net D (Death on October 5, 1954) of C, to the deceased on his/her property, by inheritance by substitute, and the defendant, who is the male of C, succeeded to the inheritance by substitute.

B. Each of the instant real estate was owned by C, but each of the instant real estate was registered in the name of the Defendant on May 2, 1974, and each of the instant real estate was registered in the name of E on January 28, 1983 under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership (Act No. 3562, the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) by November 15, 1974.

C. With respect to the real estate Nos. 5 and 6 of the instant case, each registration of transfer of ownership was made under the name of the Defendant on April 23, 1985 by Act on Special Measures for the Inheritance of Property (Act No. 4502) on August 25, 1993 (hereinafter “the second registration of transfer of ownership”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 and 3 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim concerning the first or fourth real estate of this case was that the deceased C borrowed KRW 475,700 from E on April 1974, and the Defendant had completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning each real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 through No. 4 of this case. The Defendant claimed that the Defendant had completed the registration of ownership transfer of this case with the repayment of the above loan amount in lieu of C, and that the Defendant had completed the registration of ownership transfer of this case. Thus, according to the above, since the letter of guarantee or confirmation stating the cause for the first transfer registration of ownership was false, the presumption of the first transfer registration of ownership was broken.

Therefore, the first ownership transfer registration of this case constitutes a registration invalidation of cause, and the plaintiff is the owner who has succeeded to 1/2 shares of each real estate listed in the attached list 1 through 4, and the defendant is the defendant.