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

A. The primary purport of the claim

On November 20, 1970, the Defendant performed the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff withdrawn the Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale and purchase on November 20, 1970 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet (the Plaintiff, in this court’s primary claim, on November 20, 1970 with respect to 1,849 square meters in Incheon-gun G, K Forest,

B. Preliminary claim(the plaintiff added the preliminary claim to this court).

On November 25, 1990, the Defendant shall implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on each real estate listed in the attached list to the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The same shall apply to the primary purport of the claim.

(a) Relationship between the Parties

1) L was placed in South-Nam, South-Nam N, South-Nam, South-Nam, the defendant, South-Nam, the plaintiff, and South-Nam, between the wife M.

2) L was killed on February 11, 1994, and Nam Nam C around 2014, respectively.

(b) Registration and division of each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

1) On January 19, 1965, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 5, 1964 as to the share of 225/245 of the 225/25/245 of the 5th unit of the 4th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 5th unit of the 2nd unit of the 5th unit of the Incheon reinforced Forest.

2) Each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each real estate of this case") is a real estate subject to registration conversion after being divided on August 22, 1987 from the Defendant's share in the forest land before the instant partition. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of "shared property partition on August 20, 1987" with regard to each real estate of this case on August 22, 1987.

【Facts without dispute over the ground for recognition】 1, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-3, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. Determination as to the assertion that the effect of res judicata is against

1) The defendant's assertion

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration regarding each of the instant real estate. However, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the division of inherited property with respect to each of the instant real estate, but received the judgment of the Plaintiff’s failure, and withdrawn the lawsuit, and the judgment of the Plaintiff’s failure became final and conclusive. Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it contradicts

2) Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer due to the inheritance re-division as Seoul Western District Court 2009Gahap2293 as to each of the real estate in this case, and for the payment of damages due to the preliminary impossibility of performing the obligation to register ownership transfer (hereinafter referred to as "the previous lawsuit in this case"), and the plaintiff appealed on June 18, 2009 with Seoul High Court 209Na62563, and the plaintiff withdrawn the main claim in the appellate court.

However, under the same condition as the withdrawal of a lawsuit was not pending at the beginning, the lawsuit is terminated, and the judgment of the principal state on the withdrawn part does not become final and conclusive (see Article 267(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). On a different premise, the prior defendant's assertion is without merit (the part on the claim for the registration of transfer of ownership based on the division of inherited property, the lawsuit in this case is the subject of a lawsuit, the "right to claim the registration of transfer based on the sale, the right to claim the registration of ownership based on the completion of prescription, and the right to claim the registration of transfer based on the completion of prescription, so there is no room for res judicata effect because

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Determination as to the assertion that there was an agreement to bring an action against the Plaintiff

1) The defendant's assertion

During the appellate trial of the previous suit of this case, the plaintiff and the defendant paid KRW 25 million to the plaintiff, and the mediation was concluded to the effect that the plaintiff renounces the remaining claims. At the time, the plaintiff and the defendant did not file a lawsuit related to each of the real estate of this case, so the lawsuit of this case is unlawful

2) Determination

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 2, on December 21, 2009, when the appellate court of the previous suit of this case was pending, the defendant paid 25 million won to D who was a selected person at the time of the plaintiff and the designated person D, and the mediation of the contents that the plaintiff and the designated person D waives the remaining claims can be acknowledged.

However, as seen earlier, it is insufficient to recognize that the principal claim seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration was withdrawn during the appellate trial of the previous suit of this case. Thus, it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the part demanding the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration of each real estate of this case solely on the grounds that the conciliation was concluded. There is no evidence

The above argument by the defendant is without merit.

3. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On November 25, 1970, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase each of the instant real estate from the Defendant. Of the sales price, KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the Plaintiff’s strike monthly allowance of KRW 200,000 and KRW 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for the remainder of the sales price.

The defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on November 20, 1970 with respect to each real estate of this case to the plaintiff.

B. Determination

As shown in the plaintiff's argument, each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 5, 7, and 9 and witness D of the trial of the party concerned are not sufficient to believe it as it is, in light of the respective statement of Eul evidence Nos. 3, 6, 7, and Gap evidence Nos. 8 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and each statement of Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 10, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

The plaintiff's primary ground of claim is without merit.

4. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

From November 25, 1970 to November 25, 1970, the Plaintiff cultivated each of the instant real estate by recognizing it as owned by the Plaintiff. From around 1982 to around 1994, the Plaintiff occupied the instant real estate by the direct possession of L, and from around 194 to around 2014, the Plaintiff indirectly occupied the instant real estate by each intermediate of direct possession of C.

Therefore, from November 25, 1970, the Plaintiff occupied each real estate of this case in peace and openly with intent to own it for twenty (20) years from November 25, 197 and the acquisition by prescription was completed on November 25, 190.

The Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on November 25, 1990 with respect to each real estate of this case to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

1) First, we examine whether the Plaintiff occupied each of the instant real estate for 20 years from November 25, 1970.

A) Although the witness D testified to the purport that it conforms to the Plaintiff’s assertion, it is difficult to believe it as is in light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 3, 6, 7 and 8.

B) According to Gap evidence Nos. 3, 11, and 12, the building ledger of ice roof Nos. 1 (hereinafter "the house of this case") constructed on the ground of the land listed in the annexed Table No. 1, is registered as "1966 year of the new house of this case" and "owner plaintiff", respectively. ② The domicile of L and the plaintiff on the resident registration card of this case was registered as Qu in Incheon in around 1982 until the plaintiff moved as the steel source, and the defendant andO had already been registered on the same resident registration card as L before moving, ③ the land cadastre of the R land completed registration in the name of the plaintiff around 1971, the land cadastre of the land of which the plaintiff completed registration in the name of the plaintiff around 1972, each of the plaintiff and L's domicile were recorded as forest before the division of this case.

However, the above facts alone are insufficient to confirm the fact that the Plaintiff occupied directly or indirectly each of the instant real estate for twenty years from 1970, 11, 25.

C) Each video of the evidence Nos. 17 and 18 is not sufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2) As long as it is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff occupied each of the instant real estate for a period from November 25, 1970 to twenty (20) years, the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim on such premise is without merit.

5. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims shall be dismissed for the reason that they are without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the plaintiff's primary claim, is justified with this conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's appeal is without merit, and the plaintiff's additional conjunctive claim is also dismissed without any ground.

Judges Lee Jeong-hee

Judges Lee Young-young