1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On September 10, 1913, the Defendant’s joint ship-related 31 years of age and the network D, the Plaintiff’s father (hereinafter “the deceased”) was assessed on September 10, 1913, the C Cemetery 621 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. The Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership of the instant land on February 23, 1981 (hereinafter “registration of preservation of ownership”) in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (amended by Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 197; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

C. Meanwhile, the instant land has a joint grave E with his spouse, who is the 21-year-old grandchild of the Defendant’s joint vessel.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the deceased was under the circumstances, and was owned by the deceased, and the deceased died, and the deceased was succeeded to by the deceased, the deceased, on his own, and the deceased’s death, and the Plaintiff, who was his head, succeeded to the deceased’s inheritance on his own.

However, the preservation registration of this case was completed after the deceased and F died. Despite the fact that not only the deceased and the deceased but also the plaintiff sold or donated the land of this case to the defendant, the defendant completed the preservation registration of this case with false guarantee certificates and written confirmations. Thus, the preservation registration of this case is null and void.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant land, seeks implementation of the procedure for the cancellation registration of the preservation registration of the instant case against the Defendant.

B. Summary 1 of the Defendant’s assertion is presumed to have been registered in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, and it is difficult to deem that the presumption of registration has been destroyed. 2) Rather, the preservation registration of this case is valid for the following reasons. The land of this case is owned by the Defendant.