1. The part concerning the claim for confirmation of ownership among the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. The previous 2,122 square meters (hereinafter “instant land before the instant land substitution”) was originally owned by D, the father, who was the father of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and D died on June 10, 1966. On October 18, 1979, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer (hereinafter “instant land transfer registration”) in its name pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 1977) with respect to the land before the instant land substitution.

B. After that, the Defendant sold 515/2,122 shares of the land before the instant land substitution to E, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said shares to E on October 31, 1996.

C. The land prior to the instant replotting was replaced by the land indicated in the annexed sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) on April 27, 2009.

The Plaintiff filed against the Defendant for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case against the Defendant on the ground that “The Defendant completed the ownership transfer registration of this case on the basis of a false guarantee certificate and confirmation, even though he did not purchase the land prior to the instant replotting from D, the registration of this case is null and void without any cause.” The Plaintiff filed for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case against D including the Plaintiff and the Defendant, on the ground that the wife and his children jointly inherited the land prior to the instant replotting, and filed for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case against the Defendant on the ground that the ownership transfer registration of this case was not a void without any cause of the ownership transfer registration of this case, on the ground that the Plaintiff did not file for the first instance judgment on the ground that the ownership transfer registration of this case was not a cause of invalidation, and the Plaintiff filed for the second instance judgment on the ground that the Plaintiff received a private donation of this case from D prior to the Plaintiff’s birth, thereby expanding the purport of the claim by asserting that the land was donated by D prior to the instant land.