소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the appeal.
1. The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows: "A evidence Nos. 3, 5, and 6 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 4" of the first instance judgment No. 15 and 16 are as follows: "Nos. 3, 5, and 6 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)"; "Nos. 3, 5, and 4 are as stated in the evidence No. 4; the following are as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the following addition after the second of the fifth instance judgment No. 5, the second of the fifth instance judgment is as stated in the ground for the second instance judgment. Thus, this is cited as it includes summary pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
No. 132/955 Of F land in the East Sea, the Plaintiff received compensation for KRW 76/20,780 from among the 132/95 equity right holders and J land. The above F land is divided into D land, and the above J land is divided into D land, and the Plaintiff purchased shares of KRW 76/2073 from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff is a right holder to purchase shares of KRW 132/955 of land and KRW 76/2073 of D land. Ultimately, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as supporting the Plaintiff’s purchase of the land in the East Sea. Moreover, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed as supporting the Plaintiff’s purchase of the land in the East Sea. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the land subject to the sales contract in the present case has no value for the contract.
[....]
2. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.