1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that on June 8, 1981, he purchased 1/3 of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter "the land in this case") from the deceased B, and completed the registration of ownership transfer. The defendant clan obtained a false guarantee and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land in this case according to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 4502, Nov. 30, 1992; hereinafter "Special Measures Act"). The above transfer registration is made based on a false guarantee form, and it is the registration of invalidity of the cause for the above portion of the plaintiff's share. Thus, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to implement the registration of ownership transfer for one-third share of the plaintiff's share of the land in this case, which is the plaintiff's share, due to the restoration of real name.

B. In light of the determination, registration under the Act on Special Measures is presumed to be a registration that conforms to the substantive legal relationship, so a party seeking the reversal of such presumption has prepared a false letter of guarantee or confirmation under the above Act, which forms the basis of the said registration.

or forged;

The burden of proof to reverse the presumption of the registration must be proved to the extent that the registration was not duly registered for any other reason. The degree of proof to reverse the presumption of the registration must be proven to the extent that the substantive contents of the letter of guarantee or written confirmation, which served as the basis of the registration, are not true, and the presumption of registration is not reversed unless there is any such proof (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da2189, Apr. 29, 2005), and evidence No. 7, evidence No. 8-1, 2, and 9-1, 2, and 9-1, 2, and 3, and testimony by the witness C alone, are insufficient to recognize the fact that the letter of guarantee, which served as the basis for the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the defendant, was falsely prepared or forged, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.