1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant are children of the deceased F (Death of December 28, 1972).

B. The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant for each of the instant real estate is 1) D, Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, Gyeongbuk-do (hereinafter “instant site”).

The ownership was owned by the network F. The Defendant was the ownership of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 3562, Apr. 3, 1982; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) which was in force on February 4, 1984.

(2) On May 20, 1956, the deceased F completed the registration of ownership transfer on the above site under his name on the grounds of sale and purchase on May 9, 1972. 2) The deceased F purchased 300/80 of the 32,033 square meters of the 32,033 square meters of the Gyeongdong-gun, G, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “the instant forest”). After completing the registration of ownership transfer on July 5, 1956, he purchased 148,800 additional shares of the said forest from G, but did not complete the registration of ownership transfer on the additional purchased shares.

On March 29, 1984, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name on the ground of sale on May 9, 1972 with respect to 300 shares in the above forest (i.e., 30 shares in 300 shares in 300 shares in 264,537 shares in 148,80 shares in 810 shares in accordance with the Act on Special Measures.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant land and forest is invalid in accordance with the false guarantee document, and the Defendant is obligated to cancel it. 2) The Defendant did not purchase the instant land and forest from the networkF before the formation of the networkF, but received a donation of the instant land and forest land from the networkF. As such, the presumption of each transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant with respect to the said land and forest is not broken, and thus, the respective transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant is valid.