1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Plaintiff on the instant real estate in the name of the Plaintiff, but the fact that the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “registration of this case”) on March 8, 2002 with No. 3543, which was received by the Changju District Court Branch Office of the Jeonju District Court on February 18, 2002, and the registration of ownership transfer was made in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “registration of this case”) on February 18, 202 can be acknowledged either as a dispute between the parties

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. At the time of borrowing KRW 50 million from the Defendant’s child, the Plaintiff completed the registration of this case in the name of the Defendant in the sense that the Plaintiff provided the Defendant with the real estate as a security for the above loan. Since the above loan was fully repaid or the registration of this case was null and void, the Defendant is liable to perform the registration of cancellation of the registration of this case.

B. Determination 1) Where a registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to real estate, the registrant of the registration shall not only be deemed to have obtained ownership from a third party, but also from the former owner by legitimate grounds for registration. On the other hand, the registration of real estate is valid even if the current state of true rights is publicly announced without reflecting the process or form that led to the acquisition of real estate by another reason without following the grounds for registration entered in the registration book. In the former owner’s acquisition of real estate, the former owner asserts that the form or process of the act of cause for registration is somewhat different from that of the act of cause for registration, and it cannot be said that the burden of presumption of the registration is broken. Thus, even in such a case, the title holder should assert and prove the lack of grounds for registration or the fact of illegality (see Supreme Court Decisions 99Da65462, Mar. 10, 200; 9Da65462, Aug. 21, 201).