1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 21, 2013, the Defendant completed the registration of the Cheongju District Court with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and the provisional registration of transfer of ownership security (hereinafter “provisional registration of this case”), which was based on the promise to return the substitute on March 14, 2013, from the receipt of No. 35354, Mar. 21, 2013.

B. On March 31, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on June 1, 1990 (Cheongju District Court 2005Da9012) with respect to the instant real estate.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1-1

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant real estate is owned by the Plaintiff in accordance with the judgment of the Cheongju District Court 2005Kadan9012, Cheongju District Court 2005Kadan9012, etc., among the Plaintiff and D.) under the circumstance that the Plaintiff was unable to complete the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate due to the circumstances, D prepared a false substitute return contract in collusion with the Defendant to avoid compulsory execution due to the nonperformance of business, and completed

3) Therefore, since the provisional registration of this case is null and void registration, the Defendant is obligated to cancel the provisional registration of this case to the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant provisional registration. B. Whether a legal act to determine constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy is null and void, the claimant bears the burden of proof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da27615, Sept. 29, 201). Real estate registration is presumed to have been completed from the fact that it exists formally based on legitimate grounds for registration, and is alleged by the registrant to have acquired the title of registration for reasons other than those indicated in the register. However, even if the fact of assertion is not recognized, the presumption of registration itself cannot be said to have broken even if the fact of assertion is not recognized, and thus, even in such a case, it is held liable for the assertion of the grounds for invalidation (see, e.g., Supreme