1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. As to the instant land, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in F, G, and C’s name (i.e., public land 1/3) on July 15, 1994, and C’s ownership transfer was completed on December 31, 2001, and C’s ownership transfer was completed on February 18, 2002.

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against C (Seoul Central District Court 2016Kadan41423) and the conciliation was established on August 8, 2016 (Seoul Central District Court 2016Ma14269) between the Defendant and C. Based on the executory exemplification of the above protocol of mediation, the Defendant filed an application for compulsory auction (H) on the instant land based on the executory exemplification of the above protocol of mediation and received a decision to commence compulsory auction on October 5, 2016.

C. Upon completion of the marriage report on July 29, 1994, C and the Defendant divorced as the Seoul Family Court 2014Dhap306593 decided compulsory conciliation, and the Plaintiff is the mother of C.

[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 8 (including paper numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts to the following purport.

The Plaintiff purchased the instant land along with F and G around 1991 and completed the registration of transfer for the Plaintiff’s share in C future. Around 2001, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the instant land under C alone through the partition of co-owned property around 2001. Therefore, the instant land is owned by the Plaintiff and C is merely a loan of the name.

The defendant, who was well aware of the land in this case as the plaintiff was owned by the plaintiff, recognized that the land in this case was owned by the plaintiff, excluding the land in this case as property division in C and divorce proceedings.

Nevertheless, the Defendant applied for a compulsory auction on the instant land even if there are other assets to C in order to receive the compensation for the expropriation of the instant land.

Therefore, the defendant's application for compulsory auction on the land of this case is only for the purpose of causing damage to the plaintiff and obtaining his own interest.