1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The defendant removes the building indicated in the attached list to the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is the plaintiff's grandchild.

B. On February 4, 2003, the Plaintiff purchased from Sacheon-si C large 391 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from D and completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 5, 2003.

C. Around February 7, 2003, the Plaintiff obtained permission to construct a building on the instant land from Sacheon-si and started new construction from July 21, 2003.

On November 13, 2003, the plaintiff filed a report on the change of the owner to the defendant.

On January 5, 2004, the Defendant newly constructed a building listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) and obtained approval for use from the Sacheon City, and completed the registration of ownership preservation on the instant building on July 6, 2006.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the building of this case was newly constructed on January 5, 2004.

The plaintiff did not have donated or sold the building of this case to the defendant or E (the plaintiff's son's son's son's son's son's son), but the defendant confirmed that the plaintiff changed the owner to the defendant, and completed registration of preservation of ownership

Therefore, registration of preservation of ownership on the instant building is null and void.

(However, the plaintiff is seeking the registration of transfer of ownership, not for cancellation of registration of transfer of ownership, for procedural convenience.

Judgment

According to the above facts, registration of preservation of ownership of the building of this case cannot be deemed null and void, so the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit on different premise.

3. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

A. In addition to the aforementioned evidence, the Defendant obtained the Plaintiff’s consent to use the instant land on October 2003 and used the instant land free of charge for the ownership of the instant building. The Plaintiff’s consent to use the instant land is cancelled.