1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the land in this case was 674 square meters prior to the Sung-gun B (hereinafter “instant land”) was owned by the clan C (hereinafter “J”) and was under the joint ownership of D, E, and F, the cause of the clan.

The Plaintiff’s father, G, a clan’s father, supervised the clan’s model, and the clan transferred the ownership of the land of this case to G in return for G’s expenses for the tea and the city tea. Since around 1982, G occupied and cultivated the land of this case as its owner’s intention, and died on April 11, 1983.

The Plaintiff, as a heir of G, continuously occupied and cultivated the instant land, and acquired prescription on April 12, 2003.

The defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case under the name of the defendant, notwithstanding the existence of a title holder of the land of this case, despite the existence of a separate title holder, since this is the registration of invalidity of cause, it is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of the

It is not so.

The registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant on the land of this case shall be cancelled by double registration.

2. A request for registration of transfer of ownership to recover the true title of registration is to seek the restoration of the true title of registration based on ownership in lieu of seeking the cancellation of the registration against the current title holder who has registered ownership under his/her own name or who has acquired ownership under Acts. Thus, in cases where a person who did not have registered his/her own ownership in his/her future and who has not acquired ownership under Acts can file a claim for the cancellation of the registration on behalf of the current title holder on behalf of the title holder, a request for registration of transfer of ownership to recover the true title

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64148 delivered on May 13, 2003, etc.). According to such a legal doctrine, the case of this case is health room and the Plaintiff even if so,.