1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is 3 South Korea of the network D, and the defendant is the head of the network E, the south of D.

B. The land of this case is the land substituted on February 18, 1976 by 427 square meters (hereinafter “previous land”) in the 1,812 square meters in Daegu-gun, Daegu-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. D has completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 22 of 1948 on the ground of sale and purchase on August 24, 1948.

The Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on March 6, 1962 pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Transfer of Real Estate Rights (amended by Act No. 4502, Nov. 30, 1992; Act No. 4775, Aug. 3, 1994; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) with respect to the instant land on March 23, 1995.

(hereinafter “this case’s transfer registration”). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap’s 1 through 3 (including serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff, while living in Busan, received the Plaintiff’s writing fees from the Plaintiff, and subsequently, completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Act on Special Measures without having purchased the instant land from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer under the Defendant’s name as to the instant land is null and void. Therefore, the Defendant’s land was substantially owned by the said D, which was the land that the deceasedD’s trust and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff. D donated the instant land to the Defendant, its owner around 1962, and even if the cause of acquisition is different from the fact, the registration of ownership transfer in this case completed under the Act on Special Measures is presumed legitimate registration.

Even if the registration of transfer of ownership in this case was completed based on the false certificate, the defendant from around 1962.