2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

A. On July 3, 2015, the Gu Government District Court rendered a judgment to the Plaintiff on July 3, 2015, “B shall implement the procedure for cancellation of ownership transfer registration with respect to the portion of 44 square meters inside the ship connected with each point of 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 2 in the attached Table 1 of the Map (Attachment 1) among the 3, 933 square meters in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, Seoul, the judgment to the effect that the registration of ownership transfer is revoked (the main office), 2014 group 7674(the main office), 2014 group 11818(Counterclaim), and B’s appeal was dismissed on December 4, 2015 [2015Na5417(the main office), 2015Na5424(Counterclaim)] at that time.

After that, on the grounds of land division on February 26, 2016, the District Court rendered a decision to correct the content of “C miscellaneous land 933 square meters” as “D 14 square meters” (hereinafter “instant land”) on the grounds of land division.

(2016Kadan39). Pursuant to Article 83(1)2 of the Enforcement Rule of the former Act on Land Survey, Waterway Survey and Cadastral Records, “in cases of dividing land according to a final judgment of the court, the original copy or copy of a final judgment shall be attached to the details of the response to request for division of 44 square meters among 64 square meters in D miscellaneous land according to the final judgment.” However, from October 10, 201 to October 10, 201, the provision “in cases of dividing land according to a final judgment of the court, the original or copy of a final judgment” was deleted, “in cases of dividing land according to a final judgment of the court, the district shall be divided into 80 square meters in accordance with the provisions of Article 26 of the Building Ordinance in South

B. On April 5, 2016, the Plaintiff submitted the “written opinion on the small area land division” to the Defendant, and around April 6, 2016, the “land division application” respectively. On April 18, 2016, the Defendant sent a reply to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant reply”) as follows.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 5 (if there is an additional number, including a branch number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's main defense is the plaintiff.