1. The plaintiff's conjunctive claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The plaintiff's primary features against the defendants.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant B is the Plaintiff’s mother, E is the Plaintiff’s father, and F is the Plaintiff’s birth.

B. On October 15, 1981, the Plaintiff won the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant apartment”) as an account holder of the housing subscription savings and entered into a sales contract with the Korea National Housing Corporation for KRW 9,561,000 for sale on October 26, 1981. On August 27, 1985, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for the instant apartment on October 26, 1981. On January 16, 2001, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of the Defendant B, the Seoul Central District Court of Gangnam-gu, the receipt of the Seoul District Court registration office of the Seoul Central District Court under the name of the Seoul District Court No. 2819, Jan. 15, 2001 (hereinafter “instant provisional registration”).

C. During the process of the Seoul District Court case No. 2002Kadan215449 (1) the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant B against the Seoul District Court 2002Gadan215449, which sought the implementation of the procedure for the cancellation registration of the provisional registration of this case, and sentenced the first instance court that dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim on February 5, 2003. The Plaintiff appealed against this decision and appealed as the above court No. 2003Na1164, Nov. 13, 2003, but the above court sentenced that the Plaintiff dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal on November 13, 2003. The Plaintiff appealed as the Supreme Court Decision No. 2003Da68123, but on March 25, 2004, the said judgment became final and conclusive by dismissing the appeal.

(2) After recognizing the contents (A) of the above judgment 2003Na1164, the above judgment recognized the Plaintiff’s assertion as follows after comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments of Nos. 1, 3, 1, and 200 and the purport of No. 1, B, and 1, and 200, as a whole. (c).

1. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion that “No. 1 of the instant case did not have a pre-sale agreement, which is the cause of the registration, or even if there exists any existence, constitutes a false conspiracy and thus becomes null and void, the registration No. 1 of the instant case is null and void.”