A. On August 20, 1991, E field 356 square meters, which was owned by the Plaintiff, was replaced with D field 913 square meters at the time of residence as part of the farmland improvement project.

(hereinafter “instant land”). (b)

On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the instant land owned by the Defendants on January 27, 2014 due to sale on January 23, 2014 (hereinafter “instant sale”).

(hereinafter “instant transfer registration”). C.

Meanwhile, F’s 400/819 shares, and the Plaintiff’s 419/819 shares were replaced by H 819 square meters around August 20, 1991, with H 1,550 square meters and 910 square meters in 1,550 square meters around August 20, 191.

(hereinafter referred to as “H and I land”) d respectively.

From the reorganization of land under the farmland improvement project, the defendants occupy and cultivate the entire land in this case, and the plaintiff occupies and cultivates the entire land in H and I.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 and 2, witness J and K's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations by the parties and the determination thereof

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) K, the husband of Defendant C, was the land that the instant land should have been allocated to the Defendants under the original farmland improvement project, and the Plaintiff was erroneously allocated, and the Plaintiff demanded the transfer of ownership. The Plaintiff was aware that the horses were true and completed the instant registration of ownership transfer without any consideration to the Defendants. This is a juristic act by mistake or deception, and thus, the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent to sell the instant land is revoked. Even if not, the Plaintiff’s transfer of the Plaintiff’s land without any consideration is null and void as it is against social order or is an unfair legal act. (2) The Defendants’ assertion by the Defendants purchased F shares out of the G land before the replotting, and cultivated by dividing the Plaintiff and one parcel.

Since the above land was substituted by H and I land, the plaintiff and the defendants are each one parcel.