1. The Defendants are Changwon District Court with respect to each share of 909.4/71071 square meters among forest land G 71071 square meters in Gyeong-gun, Gyeongnam-gun.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 26, 2015, H completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to shares of 45616/71071 shares among the forest land G 71071m2 (hereinafter “instant forest”).

B. On December 1, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer regarding H’s shares in the instant forest.

C. On February 21, 2017, the Defendants completed each transfer registration on February 7, 2017 with respect to each share of 909.4/71071 out of the shares owned by the Plaintiff in the instant forest.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 and 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the Defendants by setting the sales price of KRW 150 million with respect to the portion owned by the Plaintiff out of the instant forest, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendants without receiving the sales price, but the said sales contract was not concluded until the date. In the selective assertion, Defendant B asserted that there was no sales contract with the Plaintiff as to the portion owned by the Plaintiff out of the instant forest, and that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Defendant B was invalid. Accordingly, Defendant B is obligated to implement the procedure for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration completed with respect to the portion of the instant forest, which was completed on April 4, 71071, out of the instant forest.

However, around March 21, 2016, Defendant B entered into a sales contract with I for 909.4 square meters of the forest of this case and paid the down payment. On February 21, 2017, Defendant B provided that I would transfer the ownership to Defendant B, and that I would transfer the ownership.

Since Defendant B received part of the shares owned by the Plaintiff according to the sales contract concluded with I, the Plaintiff’s claim is unreasonable.

B. Determination No. 1 A, B.