1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) C, which is the Plaintiff’s fleet, acquired the land from the Plaintiff on the condition that the part (A) part (hereinafter “instant land”) 912 square meters, which was the land prior to the subdivision of the Gyeonggi-gun, Suwon-gun, D (hereinafter “instant land”), which was the land prior to the subdivision, connected each point of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 1 in sequence among the 6,360 square meters of the attached drawing among the 6,360 square meters of the B road in Sungsung-si B.

(2) One of the co-inheritors C jointly inherited the instant land with other co-inheritors.

(3) As to the instant land, the registration of ownership preservation under the name of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “the instant registration of ownership preservation”) was completed on August 14, 1995, and the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant registration of ownership transfer”) was completed on September 27, 201 by the Sungwon District Court, the Sungwon District Court, which was based on the said registration of ownership preservation, No. 146275, Sept. 27, 2011.

(4) However, since the registration of ownership preservation in this case was revealed to have a separate title holder, it is the registration of invalidity of cause. Since the registration of ownership transfer in this case was based on the above registration of ownership preservation, which is the invalidation of cause, it is the registration of invalidity of cause.

(5) Therefore, the Defendant, as co-owners of the instant land, is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case to the Plaintiff seeking cancellation of registration of invalidation of cause as a joint owner.

2. The plaintiff's assertion of judgment is the co-owner of the land of this case, and it is based on the premise that the registration of preservation of ownership of this case is invalid.

In full view of the following facts: (a) evidence Nos. 1-1 through 6, (b) evidence Nos. 1-2, (c) evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3, and (b) evidence Nos. 4-1 through 3, and (c) the Plaintiff’s prior land was assessed; (b) the Plaintiff’s prior land was jointly inherited as one of co-inheritors, in sequence C’s property as one of co-inheritors; and (c) the instant land was jointly inherited.