1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 5, 2001, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on October 4, 2001 with respect to D’s forest land C2,826 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) to D, one’s own son on October 5, 2001.

B. On May 20, 2003, the Defendant and E received the provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer (hereinafter “provisional registration of this case”) from D as the Chuncheon District Court No. 21630, May 20, 2003.

C. On November 3, 2010, E filed a lawsuit against D for the performance of the principal registration based on provisional registration of Seoul Northern District Court 2010Kadan52895, and on March 14, 2011, D received a compromise recommendation with the content that “D shall implement the procedures for the principal registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the completion of the instant provisional registration on November 10, 2010, with respect to shares of 1/2 of the instant land,” and the said reconciliation recommendation was finalized on April 2, 2011.

On April 5, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against D on April 5, 2013 against D demanding the performance of the principal registration based on provisional registration of Seoul Northern District Court 2013Kadan13129, and on July 2, 2015, the Defendant was sentenced to the Defendant on July 2, 2015 that “D shall implement the procedures for the principal registration of ownership transfer based on the completion of the instant provisional registration with respect to shares of 1/2 out of the instant land on May 16, 2005,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive on March 25, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s registration of transfer of ownership in the name of D related to the instant land was null and void as it was based on a title trust agreement between the Plaintiff and D, her mother, and the provisional registration and registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendant were also null and void as it was based on a title trust agreement

Therefore, the defendant, who is the title holder of one half of the present land of this case, is based on the restoration of real name to the plaintiff who is the true owner.