1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning for this part of the facts of recognition is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion was originally 1,782 square meters in size, but was written in 1,131 square meters in size due to registration injury.

On March 2, 1968, the Plaintiff purchased 1,782 land of this case from E, and D arbitrarily registered 327/1,782 shares of this case in the process of correcting it to the area on the registry at the time of registration.

The defendant, although he did not receive a donation from D, was issued a letter of guarantee and a written confirmation by deceiving a public official in charge by using a forged donation certificate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate on December 5, 2007.

Therefore, the defendant's registration should be cancelled due to the invalidation of the cause, but instead, the plaintiff seeks implementation of transfer of ownership registration based on the restoration of the true name in the future.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. The registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of the Defendant’s restoration of title in his/her own name is a registration indicating ownership or a person who acquired ownership under law may file a lawsuit against the present registered titleholder. However, the Plaintiff is not eligible to do so, and the Defendant is not the present owner of the land, and the lawsuit in this case is unlawful

B. A claim for ownership transfer registration to recover the true title of registration is already made in his/her own name, or is made by a person who acquired ownership pursuant to law, and is not the present title holder, but the person who is not the present title holder is not the defendant.

(Supreme Court Decision 2015Da240645 Decided December 5, 2017, and Supreme Court Decision 9Da17326 Decided August 20, 199, etc.).