beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The instant land is the real estate that AG was assessed on July 5, 1918, and on November 3, 1970, the Plaintiff, AH, AI, and AJ completed the registration of ownership preservation in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Forest Land (Act No. 2111, May 21, 1969; hereinafter “former Special Measures”).
B. AH died on September 13, 1970; AI on May 20, 1981; AJ died on March 2, 1984; and the Defendants inherited them.
[Evidence] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 7 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff owned the Plaintiff who succeeded to AG prior to the inheritance of AG as the heir of AG due to the real estate identified by AG. As to the 3/4 shares out of the instant land, the ownership preservation (hereinafter “ownership preservation”) was completed in the future of AH, AI, and AJ (hereinafter “AH, etc.”). Since the ownership preservation of the instant land has broken the presumption of registration due to the fact that a person other than the title holder was in possession of the land, the Defendants, the heir of AH, etc., are obliged to cancel the ownership preservation of the instant land according to their inheritance shares.
B. Even if it is found that there is a separate person with regard to the land for which registration of preservation of ownership has been completed under the former Act on Special Measures, the registration is completed in accordance with the lawful procedure under the same Act and is presumed to be consistent with the substantive legal relationship. As such, a party seeking the reversal of such presumption was prepared with forgery or falsity.
In other words, it should be argued and proved that the registration was not legally registered for any other reason, and the degree of proof of the falsity of the letter of guarantee to reverse the presumption of registration is sufficient to prove that the substantial contents of the statement are not true, and it should be the degree of conviction of judges.