1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

The reasons why a party member of the judgment of the court of first instance should explain this case are as follows, and this case is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following modifications. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance used as a whole is as follows: "Receipt of August 28, 1981" in the 3th and 13th and 13th, respectively.

In Part 3, "No. 13056" in Part 9 shall be changed to "No. 10356."

Part 3, "Receipt on January 22, 2013" in Part 16 shall be deemed "Receipt on January 22, 2003".

“3.(b)(4)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(2)(3)(2)(4)(2)(4)(2)(2)(1

(b) The presumption of registration of initial ownership or registration of transfer shall not be reversed unless it is proved that a registration completed under the Act on Special Measures is in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, and that a false or forged letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed under the Act on Special Measures is false or forged, or that a registration is not duly registered for any other reason. If a person who completed registration under the Act on Special Measures claims that he/she acquired his/her right according to the other reason of acquisition even if he/she recognizes the difference between the reason for acquisition stated in the letter of guarantee or confirmation, it cannot be completed under the Act on Special Measures for Special Measures for the sake of his/her assertion

Unless there are special circumstances, such as where it is apparent that it is a plosive tool in itself, the presumption ability of registration completed pursuant to the Act on Special Measures cannot be said to be broken solely for such reasons, and the presumption ability of registration should be broken to suspect that the facts of the cause of acquisition newly asserted by other data are not true.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2014Da41957, Sept. 4, 2014). Moreover, the guarantor is aware of the fact relevance of whether part of the guarantor is passively traded, and the guarantor is believed to believe and guarantee the confirmation of the other guarantor.