1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 12, 1962 with respect to C Forest C Forest 3 8 - 6 - 3 - 8 - in the time of the party division.

B. On October 14, 1969, the 6th 8th fluoral of C Forest 3 was divided into the 29,257 square meters of C Forest 2, the 9th 7th fluoral of C Forest 2, the 9th fluoral of C Forest 8th fluoral of Siljin-si (hereinafter “instant land”) and D forest 9,025 square meters of land.

C. E completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 14, 1970 with respect to the instant land by means of sale on April 5, 1965 (hereinafter “the instant registration of ownership transfer”) under Act No. 2111 (Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land, which was enacted on May 21, 1969 and enforced on June 21, 1969; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 8, 200 on the land of this case on the ground of donation on December 2, 2000.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The registration of transfer of ownership in this case under the title E in the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was made based on a false certificate of guarantee and a written confirmation, and it was made one year after the date of enforcement of the special measures in violation of Article 11 of the Act, and constitutes the registration of invalidation after the presumption

Therefore, since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant on the ground of the fact that the land was donated from E is also null and void, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the land of this case to the plaintiff

B. First, we examine the allegation that the instant transfer registration was based on a false certificate of guarantee and a false certificate of confirmation.

Registration completed under the Act on Special Measures is presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship, and is also a letter of guarantee under the Act on Special Measures.