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 reasons for the acceptance by the court of first instance are as follows, given that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following “the second order”, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning “the judgment on the merits 4.3”

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the registration of this case is void as the Defendant forged documents necessary for the registration of this case on or around May 1989 and completed the registration by deceiving the deceased in an unidentified state, and that the Plaintiff inherited the instant real estate through an inheritance division consultation on October 30, 2015, and thus, the Defendant is liable to implement the procedure for the registration of cancellation.

B. The registration of real estate is valid even though the current state of true rights is not reflected in the process or form that led to the disclosure. Thus, the registration titleholder lawfully acquired real estate from the former owner without following the grounds for registration stated in the registry when he acquired real estate from the former owner, and asserts that the form or process of the act for registration is somewhat different from that of the act for registration, and the presumption of registration cannot be said to be broken with only such assertion.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the ownership of the instant real estate was transferred at a cost, on behalf of the deceased and instead of cancelling the registration of the establishment of a superficies and the registration of the establishment of a superficies on the instant real estate, is presumed to have been transferred at a cost. As such, the Defendant’s assertion that the ownership of the instant real estate was transferred at a cost. Thus, it cannot be said that the presumption of ownership transfer registration of the Defendant’s name cannot be deemed to have been reversed in accordance with the above legal principles, and thus, the Plaintiff has the burden of proof to prove that the above assertion is invalid

The defendant would have completed the registration of this case by deceiving the deceased in an unidentified state.