beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On October 15, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant land jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant is “the part B of the instant land, which is not more than 26 square meters in sequence connected to each point of Section 1, Section 1, Section 2, Section 3, Section 4, Section 4, and Section 1, Section 26.”
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of the above agreement, since Eul agreed to divide the remaining parts into the defendant's sole ownership.
2. Determination on the above assertion
A. Reviewing the existence of the division agreement and the existence of the division agreement, the entries in the evidence No. 2-1 (Agreement), and evidence No. 2-2 (Survey Results), and witness A’s testimony, the Plaintiff and the Defendant may recognize the fact that the agreement, around October 15, 2012, contains the content as alleged by the Plaintiff, is prepared.
In this regard, the plaintiff and the defendant made up the above evidence Nos. 2-1 (Agreement) around October 15, 2012, and made up the evidence Nos. 1 (Agreement) stating the agreement to immediately revise it in that form and the new content of the agreement. Thus, the above evidence No. 2-1 (Agreement) has lost its effect.
However, the following circumstances acknowledged based on the same evidence, namely, ① the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 (Agreement) was first prepared, agreed to revise it, and then agreed to prepare A’s evidence No. 2-1 (Agreement), ② The Defendant’s witness testified that “A, as the witness of the Defendant, was the Plaintiff’s side, and the reason for the request was that the content of the agreement was too unfavorable to the Plaintiff,” ③ However, the evidence No. 1 (Agreement) is more unfavorable to the Plaintiff’s side than the evidence No. 2-1 (Agreement). ④ The evidence No. 2-1 (Agreement) emphasizes with the upper part of Article 5, while the evidence No. 1 (Agreement) is being treated as emphasizing in this language.