1. The plaintiff's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remainder.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Nonparty D (hereinafter “the deceased”) adopted the Defendant on September 1, 197 as the married couple on May 5, 1964.

B. On June 17, 1981, the Deceased reported the consultation and dissolution with the Defendant, but on February 8, 1982, the Deceased reported the birth of the Defendant as a pro-child.

C. On November 25, 2007, the Deceased died, and on May 22, 2008, each registration of ownership transfer stated in the purport of the claim in the name of the Plaintiff and the Defendant was made in accordance with the ratio of respective inheritance shares (Plaintiff 3/5, Defendant 2/5), as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3, and 5 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Part on the application for registration of cancellation;

A. Although the relationship between the deceased and the defendant was terminated by a report on the dissolution of agreement made on June 17, 1981 by the plaintiff's assertion, the defendant, as one of the co-inheritors, completed the registration of transfer of ownership as stated in the purport of the claim on the real estate in this case by inheritance. Ultimately, each of the above registrations has been completed without any cause. Thus, the defendant is liable to implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration to the plaintiff.

B. In light of the Plaintiff’s argument as seen earlier, the Plaintiff asserts that the property right due to inheritance is attributed to the Plaintiff on the premise that the Plaintiff is the true inheritor, and the Defendant refers to the Defendant, and the Defendant is an inheritor, and the registration of the instant real estate, which is inherited property, is claimed against the Defendant. It is reasonable to interpret the claim for recovery of inheritance under Article 999 of the Civil Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da5740, Dec. 24, 1991). Such claim for recovery of inheritance shall expire three years after the date on which the infringement is known.

In this case, the above facts are examined as follows.