1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the spouse of the deceased C (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), and the defendant is D's sibling.

B. On January 20, 1976, the Deceased was the owner of shares who completed the registration of ownership transfer for 3/13 of each share out of 86/13 square meters in Mapo-gu, Seoul E, and F 83/13 square meters. D around 1985, he filed an application for compulsory auction with the Seoul Civil District Court G for a third-third share of the deceased’s 83/13 square meters in each of the above real estate (hereinafter “previous land”). The defendant was awarded the previous land at the above auction procedure and completed the registration of ownership transfer under the name of the defendant on June 13, 1987.

C. On November 1, 2005, the above E and F land was replaced by the land substitution disposition under the Land Readjustment Project Act, which was made on November 1, 2005, with HH 14.4 square meters, and 16.6/14.6/4 of the substituted land on the same day (hereinafter “instant land”) was registered as the shares in the Defendant’s name.

On February 5, 1997, I, the husband of the defendant, proposed purchase of the land of this case to the deceased.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number)

2. The registration of ownership transfer completed by the Defendant’s assertion on the previous land prior to the land substitution of the instant land is invalid without any legal cause, and the Defendant agreed to return the instant land to the Plaintiff, who is the inheritor of the deceased. As such, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the instant land due to the restoration of real name.

3. Therefore, with respect to the registration of invalidity of cause caused by the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant without any legal cause, or whether the defendant agreed to return the land in this case to the plaintiff, it is not sufficient to accept the registration alone, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.