1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Under the chain, the network C contains the first, second, second, E, and third, the plaintiff.

The defendant is the wife of D.

On October 13, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on the same day.

On August 7, 2009, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate on July 3, 2009 for sale.

[Ground of recognition] The registration in the name of the defendant with respect to the real estate in this case by a person without authority is a registration invalidation of the cause completed by a person without authority, and thus, must be cancelled, as the facts without dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire argument of the parties.

The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the instant real estate was donated by C, the real owner of the instant real estate, and that the Plaintiff consented to and cooperated in the registration procedure, and the registration in the name of the Defendant is not a registration invalidation.

Judgment

Where the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to real estate, not only the third party but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership through legitimate procedures and causes. Therefore, the grounds for invalidation should be asserted and proved in the dispute. The real estate registration is valid even if the current state of true rights is publicly announced without reflecting the process or form that led to such public announcement. Thus, the former owner's legitimate acquisition of real estate for another reason without following the grounds for registration entered in the register, and the latter owner's assertion that the form or process of the act of registration is somewhat different from that of the former owner's acquisition of real estate, and that the presumption of its registration is not broken out (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da46059, May 11, 1993). Thus, such a case is disputed.