1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim against the defendant B added by this court are all dismissed.

2. This.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment regarding the basic facts and the primary claim is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the land owned by the clan E, which the said clan trusted to the Plaintiff, and the defect that Defendant B would put his religious services in a title trust, the Plaintiff re-titled the instant land to the Defendant B in the form of donation.

The Plaintiff terminated the title trust with the Defendant B, and the Defendant B must implement the procedure for cancelling the ownership transfer registration that was completed with respect to the instant land.

Meanwhile, the sales contract that the Defendants concluded with respect to the instant land is null and void as a false declaration of agreement.

Therefore, Defendant C shall implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed with respect to the land in this case, and the Plaintiff, as the creditor of Defendant B, seek to cancel the ownership transfer registration in subrogation of the creditor of the Plaintiff.

B. The registration of real estate as to the conjunctive claim against Defendant B is presumed to have been completed by legitimate grounds for registration from the fact that it exists formally, and the person who asserts that he/she had registered under the name of another person under the trust shall be liable to prove the relevant title trust.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da84479 Decided October 29, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 2017Da215070 Decided June 19, 2017, etc.). In light of the following, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff trusted the title of the instant land to Defendant B solely with the images of the evidence No. 3-1 through No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to hold the right to claim the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration due to the cancellation of title trust against Defendant B. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s preliminary claim against Defendant B is without merit.

C. Defendant C.