1. The defendant's receipt of July 9, 1998 with respect to the real estate stated in the attached list to the plaintiff of Gwangju District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is one of the children of the deceased C (Death on November 30, 2014) who is co-inheritors, and the Defendant is the owner on the registry of real estate in the real estate in the attached list (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On September 29, 1995, the deceased C purchased the instant real estate from her husband D's pro-friendly E, and the same year.

1.2. After completing the registration of ownership transfer, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 9, 1998 on the ground of sale in the Defendant’s future.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, Gap evidence 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. In order to avoid this, the Plaintiff’s net C, the husband of the instant real estate, demands the disposal of the instant real estate and the price for the disposal thereof due to the severe waste walls, so the Plaintiff’s net C, the husband of the instant real estate, was under title trust with the Defendant, the birth

However, in accordance with Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the title trust agreement in this case and the transfer of ownership based thereon are null and void. As such, one of the deceased C’s inheritors seeks to cancel the registration of transfer of ownership completed in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate in this case as preservation activities.

B. The defendant purchased the real estate of this case from the deceased C and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and the defendant cannot accept the plaintiff's request for cancellation of ownership transfer because it is not a nominal trust.

3. According to the statement No. 4-1 to No. 3 of the judgment, the Defendant seems to have paid the property tax of the instant real estate so far.

However, in full view of evidence No. 4, evidence No. 5, and testimony of witness F, the instant land was cultivated by the network D, the husband of the network C, and the first F, which was rhyth of the death of D, leased and cultivated from the network C. From 2006 to 2017, the Defendant brought about three to four times rice, the annual rent for the instant land.