1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. As to the Plaintiff, with respect to the 89 square meters wide from Jeonbuk-gun, Jeonbuk-gun:

A. Defendant B.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 29, 197, the Plaintiff purchased Daehan-gun, Jeonbuk-gun (hereinafter “instant land”) from L on December 29, 197 and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 11, 1978.

Although the name of the registered titleholder on the registry is “E”, the name of the registered titleholder on the registry appears to be a clerical error in the name of the Plaintiff (E) in light of the fact that the address indicated on the registry (F) corresponds to the address on the registry at the time of the Plaintiff, and that the date of birth (E) on the land registry corresponds to the date of birth on the Plaintiff’s resident registration, and that the name is almost identical to that of the Plaintiff’s name (A).

B. On July 3, 2007, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “the first registration of ownership”) in the above Defendant on the ground of donation on February 1, 1985 pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 7500, May 26, 2005, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

C. On May 11, 2016, Defendant Boan-gun completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case for the public works project (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”).

The land of this case is used as a public parking lot from around 2016 by Defendant Boan-gun, and the Plaintiff and Defendant B claimed that they cultivated the land of this case around the above time.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted by the parties that the plaintiff acquired the land of this case for a lifelong period, and acquired the land of this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer by obtaining a false guarantee from the residents of the defendant B despite the fact that the plaintiff did not have donated it to the defendant B, so the above registration is null and void, and the ground for the above registration is also null and void.