A. The plaintiffs 1) purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet from the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of each of the above real estate from the defendant. 2) If the plaintiff Eul, his father, not the plaintiff A, is the purchaser of the above real estate as alleged by the defendant, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer of each of the above real estate to the plaintiff B.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant purchased each real estate listed in the separate sheet from the Defendant is Plaintiff B. 2) In the case of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2, the pertinent land was actually purchased and sold with the land in which administrative subdivision is impossible without the ownership transfer registration. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim for the ownership transfer registration of the

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the claim No. 1 of the primary Plaintiff A, the fact that a real estate sale and purchase certificate (purchase) stating as if a sales contract was concluded between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant on January 2014 can be acknowledged as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet.

However, in full view of the purport of the entire argument in the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the seller of each of the above real estate as of January 2014 as the date of the contract shall be the defendant, and the purchaser shall be the official seal, but the certificate of real estate sale and purchase (sale) with the seal affixed by the plaintiff B was prepared, and all of the certificates of sale and purchase for purchase or sale are written to the effect that the price for each of the above real estate was paid by the plaintiff B.

According to the above facts of recognition, the possibility that the defendant knew the purchaser of each of the above real estate to the plaintiff B cannot be ruled out. Thus, the evidence No. 1 alone is insufficient to recognize the plaintiff as the purchaser of each of the above real estate, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff A.