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

purport, purport, and.

A. On July 29, 2015, the Plaintiff was registered as the broker of Defendant C, a licensed real estate agent operating the E Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, as the broker of Defendant B’s Village Association, and as the broker of Defendant B, 311 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Pyeongtaek-si F, Defendant B’s Village Association, and as the above ground mentmen, mentmen, bricks, strings, and 250.68 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”). However, registration of preservation of ownership was registered as “B Saemaeul Association.”

A sales contract was concluded with respect to the purchase price of KRW 130 million ( KRW 120 million for land, KRW 10 million for building, and KRW 10 million for building) (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

B. On August 26, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the sales amount to Defendant B Village Association in accordance with the instant sales contract, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land and building on the same day.

C. Around August 25, 1977, Defendant B Village Association constructed the instant building and used it as a community warehouse after completing registration of ownership preservation in the name of the said Defendant.

On the other hand, the instant land was farmland and the Plaintiff obtained the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland in order to complete the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land.

The Plaintiff delegated the registration of ownership transfer of the instant land and buildings to the certified judicial scrivener, and G, an employee of the said certified judicial scrivener office, prepared an application for the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland stating the “sale of the cause of acquisition and the weekend experience farming for the purpose of acquisition” with respect to the instant land under the name of the Plaintiff, and submitted it to the H.

In the process, G listens to the purport that “the instant building is constructed on the instant land, which is farmland without permission for farmland diversion, and constitutes an illegal building under the Farmland Act, and thus is entitled to obtain a qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland for removal of the instant building” from the public official in charge of G, and the purport is that “to implement reinstatement by October 20, 2015,” which is the Plaintiff’s name.