The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants are co-inheritors with each other, and the Plaintiff is the friendship of the Defendants.

B. On December 15, 1998, Defendant C, Nonparty E, and F purchased 3523/4 shares out of the instant land from Nonparty G, and on this basis, completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the 3523/13062 shares in Defendant C, Nonparty E, and F.

Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer made on February 17, 2002 with respect to the above 3523/4354 shares out of the instant land on February 22, 2002.

C. On February 17, 2002, Defendant B purchased 181/4354 shares out of the land of this case and 650/4354 shares from the Plaintiff, and on this ground, completed the registration of ownership transfer as to each of the above shares on February 22, 2002.

The Defendants have occupied and used the instant land since February 22, 2002.

[Evidence Evidence: Descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. On February 22, 2002, when the Plaintiff sells the instant land to the Defendants, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendants on February 22, 2002 that the Plaintiff would transfer the ownership of the instant land at KRW 300 square meters (990 square meters) (250,000,000, which is the Defendants’ purchase price (75,000,000 won), when the Plaintiff pays the Defendants a purchase price of KRW 3.3 square meters (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

As such, the Defendants were 90 square meters out of the instant land (the Defendants, each of whom was 495 square meters, and hereinafter “part of the instant land”).

(2) On February 22, 2002, the Plaintiff asserts that there is a duty to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the instant agreement. However, it is difficult to believe that the Plaintiff’s above assertion was stated in the evidence No. 4, which corresponds to the Plaintiff’s above assertion, and it is insufficient to recognize the above assertion solely with the descriptions or images of the evidence No. 3, 5, 6, and 7, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(b).