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

A. On January 20, 1983, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land indicated in the attached Tables 2, 2, and 3 of the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seocheon-gu, Seoul and 2148 square meters, D orchard 5234 square meters, and attached Tables 2 and 3

B. The defendant, who is the plaintiff, is from the plaintiff on September 17, 1998.

With respect to the land indicated in the port, the registration of ownership transfer was transferred on the ground of “sale on September 1, 1998.”

(c) a.

Of the land indicated in the port, the land indicated in paragraph (1) of the attached Table was combined on November 21, 2006 with the land of 2148 square meters and D orchard 5234 square meters.

The land listed in attached Forms 1 through 3 of the List hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case" is referred to as "each land of this case".

【Ground for recognition】No. 1 (including branch numbers, if any, hereinafter the same)

statement, the purport of the whole pleading

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and E, the former wife, had experienced in the extinguishment of around 1998.

At the time, the Plaintiff entered into a title trust agreement with the Defendant, formally, to transfer the name of each of the instant lands to the Defendant in preparation for the Plaintiff’s claim for division of property by taking each of the instant lands into account as property subject to division.

On September 17, 1998, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant lands according to the title trust agreement with the Plaintiff.

The registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant as to each land of this case is null and void pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’

Therefore, since the ownership of each land of this case is owned by the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer on each land of this case upon the Plaintiff’s request for exclusion of interference based on ownership.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that each of the instant lands was purchased at the Defendant’s expense around 1983, and then donated each of the instant lands to the Plaintiff for cultivation. However, in the event that the Plaintiff becomes divorced, each of the instant lands is recovered from the Plaintiff.