1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part pertaining to the participation in the litigation is the intervenor joining the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owned 91,648 square meters of D forest land in racing-si. However, on November 7, 2016, the Plaintiff registered ownership transfer on the ground of sale under the Defendant’s name on October 20, 2016.

B. On April 3, 2017, the area of 91,648 square meters for D forest land in racing-si was divided into 58,894 square meters for D forest land and 32,754 square meters for E forest land.

(hereinafter the above real estate is referred to as "each real estate of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence No. 2 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the assertion by the plaintiff and the plaintiff assistant intervenor

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion by the Intervenor and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor did not have concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff on each of the instant real estate, nor did they have concluded a collateral title trust agreement with the Plaintiff’s Intervenor on each of the instant real estate. Therefore, the transfer of ownership registered in the name of the Defendant on each of the instant real estate should be cancelled

B. Where the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to the judgment real estate, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership by legitimate grounds for registration. On the other hand, the registration of real estate is valid even if the current real right state is publicly announced without reflecting the process or form that led to such public announcement. Thus, it cannot be said that the former owner asserts that the form or process of the act of registration is somewhat different from that of the cause for registration when he lawfully acquired real estate from the former owner without following the cause for registration entered in the register, and that the presumption of the registration is broken down. Thus, in this case, it is invalid because the title holder's registration of ownership transfer was made against the former owner's intent.