1. From March 8, 2018, the Defendant indicated the attached Form Nos. 1, 283, 293 and 2,480 square meters prior to Jeju, to Plaintiff B, with the indication of the attached Form No. 1, 2, 3, 3.

1. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim

A. Basic facts 1) Plaintiff A’s each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each land of this case”) in the order of each land listed in [Attachment List Nos. 1, 2, and 3”, “No. 1, 2, and “No. 3” and “each land of this case” collectively.

On October 21, 1971, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 21, 1971. 2) On July 20, 2005, the land category of each of the instant lands was changed from forest land to road.

3) On January 23, 2006 with respect to each of the instant lands, the registration of change of the indication of the titleholder who changed the address A was completed by subrogation of the Jeju City on January 23, 2006. On the same day, the registration of change of the indication of the titleholder who changed the address A was completed, and on January 16, 2006 at the Jeju City on the same day, the registration

(4) The Jeju-do Special Act on the Jeju-do Administrative System, etc. (amended by Act No. 7847 of Jan. 11, 2006 and enforced on Jul. 1, 2006) was repealed as a local government pursuant to Article 3 of the former Special Act on the Jeju-do Administrative System, etc. (amended by Act No. 9526 of Mar. 25, 2009) and succeeded to the affairs and property of the Jeju-do abolished as above by the Defendant pursuant to Article 4 (2) of the Addenda (No. 7847, Jan. 11, 2006).

(hereinafter) The Defendant opened a road on the ground of each of the instant land before March 8, 2012 and occupied each of the instant land. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, and the evidence Nos. 2 and 7 (a numbered numbered numbered numbered numbered numbered numbered numbered numbered numbered; hereinafter the same shall apply) are included.

- The purport of the whole pleadings

B. The gist of Plaintiff A’s assertion as to the cause of the claim is that: (a) the ownership transfer registration of this case was completed in the Defendant’s future based on the gift agreement (Evidence No. 1; hereinafter “instant gift agreement”) on January 16, 2016, without the Defendant’s donation of each of the instant land to the Defendant; (b) thus, the said transfer registration is null and void as it is based on the act of an agent with no authority to act as an agent or the relevant investigation document.