1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C married with D on December 29, 1971, and maintained E, South-North, 2 South-North, 2 South-North, 2 women F, 3 South-North, 3 South-North, as well as E.

B. Each of the real estate listed in Schedule 1 and 2 was owned by C. The above Category C died on December 2, 1981, and the Defendant completed each of the above real estate registration under the name of the Daegu District Court Busan District Court No. 9267, Feb. 28, 201 as of February 28, 2014 for inheritance due to consultation division.

C. The real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 3 and 4 was owned by D. The above D died on July 28, 2013, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer of each of the above real estate under the name No. 4271, Feb. 28, 2014, based on inheritance by consultation division on July 28, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1-1 to 4, Gap evidence 2-1 to 3, Gap evidence 3-1 to 6, Gap evidence 4-1, 2, Gap evidence 5 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that each real estate indicated in the separate sheet No. 1, which is inherited by the deceased C, E, the Defendant, F, and G, as the inheritor of the network D, did not have any agreement on the division of inherited property. However, the Defendant merely held documents requested by the Defendant by requiring the Plaintiff’s seal imprint certificate, certificate of personal seal impression, etc. to search for the network D’s deposit. As such, the above agreement on division of inherited property is null and void. Accordingly, the registration on the transfer of ownership in the Defendant’s name, which was completed due to the division of consultation, should be cancelled as the cause of invalidation.

3. Determination

A. Where registration of transfer of ownership is made, it is presumed that the registration is lawful and is given public notice of the true state of rights. Therefore, the party who asserts that the registration was made unlawful is responsible to prove the opposing fact that it is sufficient to reverse the presumption of rights.

Supreme Court Decision 79Da645 delivered on July 10, 1979.