1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. On July 27, 2010, the Defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on July 26, 2010 with respect to the land of Jeju-si C, 331.1 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from the mother-friendly D (hereinafter “the deceased”).

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant had a book of management of the deceased’s account. At that time, there was a transfer of money from the deceased’s account to the L account that is the spouse of the Defendant or the Defendant, or deposit money to the deceased’s account on the contrary.

C. On March 11, 2015, the Deceased died, and as his inheritor, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and F, G, H, and I jointly inherited the deceased’s property.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 8, Eul's order to submit financial transaction information to Mbank of the court of first instance as of April 18, 2016, the purport of the whole pleadings, as a whole.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The principal assertion 1) The registration of ownership transfer completed in the future of the Defendant as to the instant land constitutes a registration invalidation for the following reasons. As such, the Defendant is obligated to perform the procedure for registration of ownership transfer cancellation with respect to 2/15 shares out of the instant land, which falls under the inherited shares, to the Plaintiff, the heir of the deceased. The Defendant forged the registration document and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future. The registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant is in fact nominal trust in the future of the Defendant. The sales contract between the Defendant and the Deceased is null and void as it constitutes a anti-social legal act or unfair legal act because the actual payment is not made at all or there is a significant difference between the purchase price and the actual transaction. The sales contract between the Defendant and the Deceased constitutes a false agreement and thus null and void. The sales contract between the Defendant and the Deceased constitutes a declaration