beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 20, 1987, with respect to each of the lands listed in the separate sheet 1, 2, and 3 (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”), the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant was completed on March 20, 1987, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of Nonparty C on July 10, 1981.
B. In addition, on March 3, 1995 with respect to the land listed in the attached list 4, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Nonparty D (former names: E) was completed on February 14, 1995 with respect to the land listed in the attached list 6.
C. Meanwhile, as to each of the instant lands, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Heung-gun was made on April 13, 2009; as to each of the lands listed in the separate sheet No. 4, October 30, 2009; as to each of the lands listed in the separate sheet No. 5, and the separate sheet No. 6, June 11, 2009.
Around April 17, 2009, the Defendant received KRW 156,664,170 as the purchase price for each of the instant lands from the Heung-gun around April 17, 200.
(hereinafter “The purchase price of this case”). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, the entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase approximately KRW 12,00 on September 19, 198 with regard to each land indicated in the separate sheet at KRW 15,00,00. Nonparty F, the husband of the Defendant, issued a registration certificate and a certificate of personal seal for sale, and a copy of the Defendant’s resident registration. However, each of the above land purchased by the Plaintiff was insufficient from around 12,00 to around 470. After that, the Plaintiff did not register the ownership transfer because each of the land listed in the separate sheet fell under the land transaction permission zone and did not register the ownership transfer, and each of the land listed in the separate sheet was occupied and used by the Defendant, and the Defendant accepted each of the instant land in the interesting group.