1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s 741m2 in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun (hereinafter “Before subdivision”).

2) The Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff: (b) the Plaintiff: (a) the Plaintiff owned a building on the said land; (c) the F purchased the said 66m2 on the said land on the said land; and (d) the G requested the Plaintiff to register the ownership of the said land; (b) the Plaintiff allowed G to divide the 66m2 out of the land before subdivision into G in around 1997; and (c) in collusion with F, the Plaintiff divided the 159m2, not 66m2 into Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, a building on the said land into the said land.

3) On March 3, 2016, after the death of G, the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the inheritor of G, entered into a sales contract by adding up the said land owned by the Plaintiff to the pertinent land that the Plaintiff had to transfer ownership to G, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the said land (the registration of ownership transfer was completed by combining the above land, and the actual area of the said land was confirmed to be 139 square meters, and the actual area of the said land was confirmed to be 139 square meters, and the area of the land in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, the actual area of the said land was 259 square meters.

(4) However, the Plaintiff, who was unaware of such fact by dividing G into the said C-land, was 66 square meters in the area that the Plaintiff intended to divide into G in the land that was originally located before the subdivision. However, the Plaintiff, who was unaware of such fact, completed the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to 159 square meters (the area confirmed during the land is 139 square meters), rather than 66 square meters, to the Defendant.

5) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s contract was cancelled to transfer more than 66m2 of the land before subdivision to the Defendant, and sought the return of that portion. The Plaintiff’s sale on March 3, 2016 (the sale on March 20, 2016) appears to be a clerical error.

2,024,100 won shall be claimed for the return of capital gains tax on 66 square meters borne by the Plaintiff due to the cause.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence No. 5, the site area of a building constructed on the land before subdivision.