1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 29, 1980, the registration of ownership transfer was completed again on the same day as the day when the registration of ownership transfer in the name of G was completed on the ground of sale as of December 20, 1967 under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 197; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

B. On July 4, 1981, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the Plaintiff for the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Cheongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, in the vicinity of the above E land. However, on November 7, 1983, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 12, 1983, and was merged into the above E.

As a result, E’s land size was changed to 211 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The ownership of the instant land was finally transferred to I through H, etc.

C. On May 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against G to return the instant land amounting to KRW 50 million, which is part of the market price of the instant land, to unjust enrichment, asserting that G obtained false guarantee and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the Act on Special Measures for the Development of Special Measures and disposed of the instant land, even though G did not purchase the instant land from PlaintiffbuF, and that G would obtain profit equivalent to the instant land value, and the Plaintiff sustained loss equivalent to the instant land value.

On December 16, 2014, the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the registration completed under the Act on Special Measures for the Prevention of Disasters is presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship and that circumstances to reverse the presumption were not proven.

The plaintiff appealed against the above judgment, but was sentenced by the Daegu District Court on July 9, 2015 to the dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal (Tgu District Court 2014Na30607), and is again dissatisfied with the above appellate judgment.