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

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on October 26, 201 with respect to each part of the instant land to the Plaintiff.

2. In light of the following circumstances, it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that a sales contract for each part of the instant land was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant around October 26, 201, solely based on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, the witness C’s testimony and the appraisal result of appraiser D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the sales contract for each part of the instant land was concluded on or around October 26, 201.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

① On October 26, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant purchased each part of the instant land from the Defendant.

However, the contract of this case submitted by the plaintiff is accompanied by the defendant's certificate of seal impression issued four years after the contract date stated in the contract, and does not properly indicate the object of sale.

In addition, the above sales contract does not mention the method of dealing with provisional registration of each land of this case, but includes matters that cannot be considered as a usual real estate sales contract, such as determining the time of delivery of the subject matter of sale after seven years from the date of conclusion of the contract.

② The Defendant’s seal imprint affixed on the instant sales contract is deemed to be based on the Defendant’s seal imprint, but in light of the form of the seal imprint, etc., it is difficult to deem that the said seal imprint was affixed to the Defendant at the time the Plaintiff asserts.

In addition, the plaintiff is in the remarks column of the certificate of seal impression attached to the above sales contract.