1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Under the underlying facts, the Plaintiff owned large 241 square meters in G G 241 square meters of the wife population (hereinafter “Fri”) at the time of tolerance. Here, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the name of the Defendant on the partitioned land as follows.

The remaining G large area of 127 square meters is registered in the name of the plaintiff at present.

The defendant on November 12, 198, on November 12, 1988, purchased through consultation on public land on November 12, 198 on November 12, 198, 32, 198, on December 22, 198, 198, the transfer registration holder B large 57 square meters on the date of registration of land registration, B, 197. The defendant E-road 3 square meters on December 12, 198, on December 12, 198, on December 12, 198, on December 12, 198, 190.

2. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had agreed on the expropriation of part of G land before subdivision with the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, while proceeding with the construction for the small-scale tending project and the development of the village district according to the H village district development project. The Defendant completed the registration of the transfer of each of the instant land, which is part of the land without paying the purchase price, at will.

On November 27, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a peremptory notice to the Defendant on December 4, 2017, on the grounds of the payment of the purchase price as above, and expressed the Defendant’s intent to cancel the sales contract for each of the instant land on December 11, 2017 due to the Defendant’s failure to provide performance within the given period.

Since a sales contract was cancelled, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for each of the above lands to the plaintiff.

3. In the instant case, the fact that the Defendant did not pay the purchase price of each of the instant lands ought to be proved by the Plaintiff claiming the rescission of the purchase and sale contract, and there is no evidence or circumstance to prove such fact as follows.

The plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.

A. The plaintiff does not possess documents pertaining to the procedure for acquiring each land of this case and some documents submitted by the defendant are voluntarily prepared by the defendant without involvement of the plaintiff.