1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion on January 24, 1924 is the real estate held in title by the Plaintiff to the network E, networkF, and network G, and the Defendant did not purchase the instant real estate from the deceased, and the Plaintiff, upon notification of false facts to farmland members at the time of around 1984, completed the registration of ownership transfer in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate, which was enforced by the false letter of guarantee.

Therefore, the above registration shall be cancelled because it is a registration of invalidation of cause.

2. The registration completed under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3562, Apr. 3, 1982; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) is presumed to be a registration in conformity with the substantive legal relationship. The presumption power of the registration of transfer is not broken unless the letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed under the Special Measures Act is false or forged, or there is no proof that the registration is not duly registered due to other reasons. In addition, even if the person who completed the registration under the Act on Special Measures claims that he/she acquired his/her right in accordance with the letter of guarantee or confirmation, if he/she claims that he/she acquired his/her right in accordance with the other reason of acquisition, it is obvious that the registration under the Act on Special Measures for the Ownership of Real Estate cannot be completed,

Unless there exist special circumstances, such as that it is clear that it is a plosive tool, the above reasons alone cannot be deemed to have broken the presumption ability of registration made under the Act on Special Measures, and only if it is proven to the extent that it is not true about the fact that the cause of acquisition newly asserted by other data is proven by other data, the presumption ability of registration is broken.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Da71388, 71395, Nov. 22, 2001). According to each of the evidence Nos. 3 through 6, the Defendant’s registration of ownership transfer, etc. of the former real estate.