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

The net C owned a 413 square meters wide (hereinafter “instant land”) in Chungcheong land D (hereinafter “instant land”).

The deceased on September 8, 200, the deceased on September 8, 200, and accordingly, the land in this case was succeeded to 3/7 shares, the inheritor, and 2/7 shares, respectively, by the original defendant, and registered on December 2, 2004.

On November 25, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer by reason of testamentary gift on February 4, 2005 with respect to the ownership shares of the above land (3/7) from E.

On December 27, 2005, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer by reason of the gift made on December 20, 2005 with respect to the ownership (2/7) of the above land from the Defendant.

The building of this case is currently unregistered, and the network C is recorded as its owner in the building ledger.

【The ground for recognition” did not have any dispute, each entry in Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including additional numbers), and the ground for a claim as to the whole purport of pleading, the defendant, the main point of the plaintiff's argument, as to the inheritance of the net C's property, agreed that the land and building of this case shall be owned solely by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the land of this case was owned by the plaintiff, but the building of this case, which is unregistered, was not registered.

Since then, although the plaintiff tried to register the building of this case according to the agreement, the defendant's refusal to register it is necessary to make a judgment such as the statement of claim.

Judgment

The facts that the plaintiff is the child of the deceased C, the plaintiff is the owner of the land of this case, which is the site of the building of this case, and the plaintiff is deemed to have donated 2/7 shares of the land of this case from the defendant on December 27, 2005, but it is insufficient to recognize that the agreement on the division of inherited property between the original defendant and the plaintiff on the division of inherited property with the content that the building of this case should belong to the plaintiff on the sole basis of the above recognition was reached

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.