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

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

1. Basic facts

A. The pertinent Plaintiff of the parties is the wife of the net F (G students, death of March 9, 1994) born between D and E, and Defendant B is the Plaintiff’s scenario as the buyer of F, and Defendant C is the father of Defendant B.

B. A change in ownership of each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) is the omission of Defendant B. H completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the instant land on September 4, 1980, and H completed the registration of ownership transfer to I on the same day on August 28, 1980. 2) The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the Plaintiff on March 5, 1982 on the instant land on the grounds of sale as of February 25, 1982.

On the other hand, on March 5, 1982, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with H to purchase a wooden sapapa house of 15 square meters (hereinafter “previous house”) from H to 15th square meters.

H completed registration of ownership preservation in the name of the previous house on March 19, 1982 and completed registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff on April 1, 1982 after completing registration of ownership preservation in the name of the previous house.

3) Defendant B asserted, around 198, that “The instant land and previous housing shall be purchased from the former owner and trusted only the registration title thereof to the Plaintiff, and the trust relationship shall be terminated by delivery of a copy of the complaint.” Defendant B filed a claim for ownership transfer registration on the ground of termination of title trust on the date of service of a copy of the complaint in the instant case (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”).

The proposal was filed.

A duplicate of the complaint of this case was served on November 2, 1988.

The Jeju District Court has concluded the pleadings on November 8, 198, and on December 6, 1988, “Plaintiff” on the ground that “the Plaintiff was served with a duplicate of the complaint of this case on the date of pleading, and did not appear on the date of pleading, and did not dispute Defendant B’s claim, and thus the stock price was constituted.”