1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff owned 100/652 shares of 10/652 out of 10/652 shares of Cheongdo-gun, Cheongdo-gun, Cheongdo-gun, Cheongdo-do-gun (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On December 16, 2005, the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Defendants (hereinafter “the registration of ownership transfer”) was completed as of December 21, 2005 by the Daegu District Court Cheongdo-do-si registry office on December 21, 2005.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence No. 1

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant real estate was permitted to open the body of the Defendants’ mother, but the Plaintiff did not trade the Plaintiff’s share to the Defendants. The instant transfer of ownership registration is a registration invalidation of cause caused by forgery of relevant documents, such as a sales contract, and thus, should be cancelled.

3. Where the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to the judgment real estate, not only the third party, but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership by legitimate grounds for registration. Meanwhile, the registration of real estate is valid even if the current real right state is publicly announced without reflecting the process or form that led to the former owner's acquisition of real estate for any other reason without following the grounds for registration entered in the register. Thus, it cannot be said that the presumption of registration is broken with only such assertion because the former owner lawfully acquired the real estate for another reason without following the grounds for registration entered in the register, and that the latter owner's acquisition of real estate for any other reason cannot be said to have taken the burden of presumption of registration. Thus, in this case, the disputing party should assert and prove that the registration of ownership transfer by the former owner against the intent of the former registration titleholder.

(Supreme Court Decision 9Da65462 delivered on March 10, 200). Examining the case back to the instant case, each of the descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7 are alone.