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.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes in this court, and therefore, it refers to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

(The grounds for appeal by the Plaintiff are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and even if the evidence submitted by the first instance court is examined, the fact-finding and judgment by the first instance court are deemed legitimate. The registration completed under the Act on the Special Measures for the Determination of Additional Acts and Subordinate Statutes is presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship, and unless it is proven that the letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed by the Act on the Special Measures for the Determination of Additional Acts and Subordinate Statutes was false or forged, or that it was not a legitimate registration due to other reasons, the presumption of ownership

In this context, a false letter of guarantee or written confirmation refers to a letter of guarantee or written confirmation that the substantial description of the reason for the alteration of a right does not fit the truth, and in light of the fact that the Act on Special Measures allows the actual transferee of real estate to make a registration that does not coincide with the procedure for the alteration of a right, the date of purchase, which is the reason for the acquisition of a right, is later than the date of death of the former registration titleholder, or the entry of the name of the seller or the date of purchase in the letter of guarantee or written confirmation is different from the real

Even if so, it cannot be said that the legal presumption of legitimacy of the registration has been broken.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da28735, Oct. 10, 1997; 2000Da33775, Oct. 27, 2000). The Plaintiff asserts that since the Defendant purchased the instant land from E, who is not the owner on the register, the presumption of registration under the Act on the Special Measures has become extinct.

However, the foregoing.