1. On February 6, 2013, the Defendant received each land indicated in the separate sheet from Daejeon District Court, the Port Office of Port of the Daejeon District Court, from the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. On October 21, 2006, B donated each of the lands listed in the separate sheet owned by it (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) to the Plaintiff, his wife, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the instant real estate on November 7, 2006.

B. On February 6, 2013, the head of the Daejeon District Court’s registry office was received as of February 6, 2013, and as of February 6, 2013, the registration of the creation of a superficies was completed 30 years from the date of the registration of the creation of a superficies for the ground of a contract to establish a superficies as of February 6, 2013, which was KRW 169,000 (hereinafter “the registration of the creation of a mortgage in the instant case”). On the same day, the registration of the creation of a superficies was completed for the ground of a contract to establish a superficies as of February 6, 2013 as of the Defendant and the date of the registration of the establishment of a superficies as of February 6, 2013.

(hereinafter “Registration of Creation of Superficies” (hereinafter “Registration of Creation of Superficies”). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5 respectively, and the plaintiff’s assertion B of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the purport of the whole pleadings forged documents necessary for the registration of establishment of a mortgage contract, a superficies contract, etc. on the ground that a female who was unable to know his name on February 6, 2013 was the plaintiff, and forged documents necessary for the registration of establishment of a mortgage contract, a superficies contract, etc. on the ground that he was the plaintiff. Accordingly, each of the above registrations should be cancelled as a registration of invalidation of cause.

The Defendant’s employee taking charge of Defendant’s assertion was confirmed on February 6, 2013 that the female visiting a business store was the same person as the Plaintiff. At the time, the Plaintiff prepared documents necessary for the establishment registration and the establishment registration of superficies of the instant case. As such, each of the above registrations cannot be deemed as a registration invalidation of cause.

Judgment

Facts of recognition

Records of Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7-1 through 4, Gap evidence 8 through 14, Gap evidence 15-1 through 8, and Gap evidence 16-1 through 3.