1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and C are children of net D (Death of May 8, 199) and the defendant is C's wife.

B. C completed registration of ownership preservation in its name in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502, Apr. 1, 1993), which was enforced at the time of the entry into force on the registration of transfer of ownership of real estate, in the case of real estate in whose name the location of the real estate is Furi-ri, Dong-si, Si, 1993.

C. On December 4, 2007, the Defendant completed each registration of ownership preservation in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 7500), which was enforced at the time with respect to G forest land of 370 square meters and H forest land of 168 square meters.

C. G forest land was registered on May 4, 2009 and became 332 square meters of I forest land. On January 17, 2013, the land category was changed to a site.

H Forest land was a combination of 168 square meters of J forest and 442 square meters on July 22, 2011, and the area was 610 square meters of J forest and 610 square meters. On January 17, 2013, the registration conversion was made and 623 square meters of K forest and 161 square meters of K forest and 462 square meters of L forest were divided on January 17, 2013, and the land category of L forest was changed on January 17, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers for those with a branch number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment as to the defense prior to the merits was the defense prior to the merits, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for damages under Seoul Central District Court 2014DaGa249728 and was ruled to have been lost. The above judgment was already finalized. Since the lawsuit in this case is identical to the above lawsuit, it asserts to the purport that it is unlawful because it goes against the prohibition of double lawsuit.

However, the prohibition of a double lawsuit under Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act is to prohibit a new lawsuit at the time the case is pending in the court for the same matter, and even if the previous suit is finalized, the effect of res judicata is separate from that of res judicata.