1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the part of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiffs B, C, and Defendant are children of Plaintiff A and deceased H.

B. The network H owned each real estate stated in the purport of the claim and died on November 20, 193, and thereafter, on November 20, 1984 with respect to the first and second real estate, and on March 20, 1985 with respect to the third real estate, the ownership transfer registration (hereinafter “the ownership transfer registration of this case”) was completed in the Defendant’s name, as stated in the purport of the claim, pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502, Nov. 30, 1992; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3, 6 through 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had not received or purchased each real estate stated in the purport of the claim from the deceased H, but arbitrarily completed the registration of ownership transfer of this case.

Therefore, the ownership transfer registration of this case shall be cancelled as the registration of invalidation of the cause.

B. Determination 1) Since the registration under the Act on Special Measures is presumed to be in line with the substantive legal relationship, it shall be proved that the party seeking the reversal of such presumption did not have been duly registered on the grounds that the letter of guarantee or confirmation under the said Act, which served as the basis for the relevant registration, was falsely prepared, forged, or forged, or for other reasons. The degree of proof to reverse the presumption of registration shall be proven to the extent that the substantive contents of the letter of guarantee or confirmation, which served as the basis for the registration, are not true, and unless there is such proof, the presumption of registration is not reversed (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da2189, Apr. 29, 2005). As seen earlier, the ownership transfer registration in this case was completed in accordance with the Act on Special Measures, and thus, it is consistent with the substantive legal relationship.