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

A. As to the primary claim, the Plaintiff asserted that on January 10, 1987, the Defendant purchased the land indicated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant land”) from the deceased B, the Defendant’s children, and sought the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the instant land based on the said sale.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s entry that corresponds to the facts of the purchase of the instant land as alleged by the Plaintiff is hard to believe with the Plaintiff in light of the relationship between the Plaintiff and D, etc. Even if such fact is recognized, the Plaintiff cannot seek performance of the obligation to transfer ownership pursuant to the sales contract against the Defendant, other than the Plaintiff.

(B) Even if the Defendant died as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to view that the Defendant succeeded to B’s obligation solely on the ground that he was his father.

As to the conjunctive claim, the Plaintiff asserted that he occupied the instant land for twenty (20) years from January 10, 1987, and sought against the Defendant the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the instant land due to the prescriptive acquisition on January 10, 2007, but there is no sufficient evidence to deem that the Plaintiff occupied the instant land during that period.

C. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are without merit.

(1) The Plaintiff’s primary claim and conjunctive claim are dismissed, even if the Plaintiff’s primary claim and conjunctive claim are asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff succeeded to the instant land at the time of sale as indicated on the date of the first pleading, since the lawsuit brought against the Defendant, who was the deceased, is unlawful. Thus, the Plaintiff’s primary claim and the Defendant’s indication should have been corrected as a lawful inheritor.