1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was owned by A. On March 9, 2015, the ownership transfer registration was completed under the name of Jeju District Court No. 26932 on March 13, 2015 (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”).

B. A died on or around April 28, 2017, and his heir is D, E, F, Plaintiff, and Defendant, and only the Plaintiff took over the instant lawsuit.

[In the absence of any dispute, Gap 1's evidence, and the purport of the whole pleading]

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion A (hereinafter “the deceased”) did not sell or donate the instant real estate to the Defendant, but the Defendant transferred the ownership of the instant real estate by using the deceased’s seal imprint.

Therefore, since the ownership transfer registration of this case is null and void, it should be cancelled.

B. If the registration of ownership transfer has been completed, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership by legitimate grounds for registration. Thus, in order for the plaintiff to deny it and to seek the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer by claiming the invalidation of the grounds for registration, the plaintiff is responsible to assert and prove the facts constituting the grounds for invalidation.

(Supreme Court Decision 2009Da105215 Decided March 13, 2014). The registration of real estate is valid even if the current state of true rights is publicly announced without reflecting the process or form that led to such public announcement.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the transfer of ownership in this case’s transfer of ownership cannot be deemed as having been invalidated solely on the ground that the transfer of ownership in this case’s transfer of ownership was not proven solely on the ground that the transfer of ownership in this case’s transfer registration was destroyed by the statement of Gap evidence No. 5 (in the face of confirmation) and witness G’s testimony

The plaintiff argues that it was made by falsity because it was written that the deceased had a warning on the face of confirmation even though he did not use a warning.