Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant E shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant E shall be dismissed.

The plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court below is that the court changed the 3 Myeon-3 proposal of the first instance judgment to “(No. 3092 of March 1, 1978, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership (hereinafter “D’s transfer of ownership”) due to sale on December 21, 209, No. 118597 of the Ulsan District Court’s receipt of December 30, 2009, No. 118597 of December 31, 2009, and Defendant E completed the registration of ownership transfer due to sale on the instant land with the Ulsan District Court’s receipt of No. 10170 of July 13, 2018, No. 10170 of July 13, 2018 (hereinafter “the ownership transfer”).

With the exception of adding “1. Basic Facts” as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, the same shall be cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s allegation that the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim occurred is the land owned by the network G, and the Plaintiff inherited the land via the network H following the death of the network G.

The deceased G, the network H, or the Plaintiff completed the registration for the preservation of ownership of the land in its name, based on the false guarantee document, even though Defendant B did not sell or donate the land in this case to Defendant B.

Therefore, Defendant B’s registration of preservation of ownership on the instant land is null and void since there is no cause for action, and the registration of ownership transfer in the remaining Defendants’ names is null and void.

Therefore, in response to the exercise of the Plaintiff’s right of exclusion from interference with the Plaintiff’s ownership, Defendant B is obligated to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of ownership preservation registration in its name, and Defendant C and E are obligated to perform the registration procedure for cancellation of each Defendant’s ownership based on ownership preservation registration of each of the above invalidation.

3. Determination

A. As to the claim against Defendant B (whether the registration of preservation of ownership of Defendant B with respect to the land of this case is null and void) pursuant to the Special Measures Act.