1. The plaintiff (appointed)'s claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. On December 13, 1912, the instant real estate was assessed against D.

B. On December 194, the Defendant obtained a guarantee from Nonparty E, F, and G to the effect that the Defendant is the purchaser of the instant real estate, and accordingly completed registration of ownership preservation as of March 22, 1995 by taking procedures under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

C. The Plaintiff (designated parties, hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) and the selector (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”) are the successors of the network H.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. It is true that the Plaintiff’s key point of the Plaintiff’s assertion H, the Defendant’s preemptive party H, and D, the real estate of this case, were assessed by the same person.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs are the owners of the instant real estate.

However, the defendant, by deceiving the guarantor and obtaining a false guarantee, completed registration of preservation of ownership on the real estate of this case under the Act on Special Measures. Since this should be cancelled as a registration of invalidation, the plaintiff, one of the co-owners of the real estate of this case, seeks to cancel the above registration to the defendant.

(b) A person who intends to seek the cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for Determination shall assert and prove that the nominal owner of the registration of preservation of ownership has made a false certificate of guarantee and a written confirmation under the Act on Special Measures, or that the registration of preservation was not lawfully made for other reasons, regardless of whether the certificate

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da74684, Jan. 23, 2014). However, the Plaintiff is admitted as evidence, such as a certified copy of the register, land cadastre, and family relation certificate.