1. The defendant is based on the restoration of the true name with respect to the area of 919 square meters prior to the previous Yan-gun, Jeonnam-gun.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 17, 1989, the previous 123 square meters of land in the previous 3716 square meters in the previous Yannam-gun, Jeonnam-gun (hereinafter “the land before division”) was divided into D, and the previous 803 square meters of land was divided into E, and the previous 2780 square meters of land was divided into B on July 8, 1999 (hereinafter “instant land”). The instant land was the Plaintiff’s State property managed by the National Tax Service.

(b) F, while taking charge of affairs concerning the sale of State property and change of the purchaser’s name, received the disposition of State property by borrowing his/her family or relative name from the purchaser and forging the bidder’s registration, etc.;

C. The F, while taking charge of the procedures for non-sale of state-owned land, registered G, its expulsion as a false bidder around July 5, 1974, and forged a sale certificate, etc. as if sold to G through the public sale process on July 8, 1978. On December 12, 1984, the F forged an application for change of the purchaser’s name to change the purchaser to G, and subsequently completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale as of November 21, 1987, the Defendant, at the end, made the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of sale as of July 8, 1974.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In full view of the purport of Article 14 of the former State Property Act (wholly amended by Act No. 9401 of Jan. 30, 2009; hereinafter the same), Article 14 of the same Act explicitly prohibits employees engaged in the affairs related to State property from strictly pointing out the most conspicuous act that may be suspected of having committed an unlawful act with respect to the employees involved in the affairs concerned in order to promote fairness in the affairs of disposal of State property in accordance with the legislative intent of Article 1 of the same Act, and provides that such act shall be null and void as to the legal effect of the act in violation of the prohibition.