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

A. The plaintiff is the deceased's wife on March 18, 1998, and the defendant is the plaintiff's external third village.

B. A deceased D’s grave is installed on the part of the instant graveyard, and the Defendant received KRW 2,00,000 from the Plaintiff around March 19, 1998.

C. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 2148 of January 29, 2008 pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer (amended by Act No. 7500 of May 26, 2005) with respect to the instant land.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 5, evidence 6-1 to 4, each of the statements or images, witness E's testimony, result of the survey and appraisal conducted by appraiser F, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On March 19, 1998, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the graveyard portion of this case from the Defendant for KRW 2,000,000,000, and paid KRW 2,000 to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the part of the graveyard of this case to the Plaintiff on March 19, 198.

3. The fact that a deceased D’s grave was installed on the part of the instant cemetery, and the Defendant received KRW 2,00,000 from the Plaintiff around March 19, 198 is as seen earlier.

However, the following circumstances are acknowledged based on the witness E’s testimony, the result of appraiser G’s market price appraisal, and the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., ① the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not specify the size of the land that the Plaintiff intended to use as a cemetery as of March 19, 198 and the subsequent price; ② the market price around March 1998 of the instant land is KRW 13,00 per square meter, and the market price of the instant cemetery portion is KRW 8,580,000 ( KRW 13,000 x 660 square meters) upon conversion into the area. In light of the above facts alone, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff purchased the portion of the instant cemetery from the Defendant on March 19, 198, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.