1. The Defendant shall jointly owned on December 2, 2016 with respect to the Plaintiff’s share of 2727/5752, out of 3,015 square meters of land in Echeon-si.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the division of jointly-owned properties with the content that the Plaintiff would divide the instant forest into the Defendant and 3,015 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest”) among the forest land before the instant partition. The Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant for the division of jointly-owned properties with the content that the Plaintiff would divide the instant forest into the Defendant and 5733 square meters into the instant forest and 3,015 square meters (hereinafter “instant forest and 3,015 square meters”).

(hereinafter “instant division contract”). B.

On December 30, 2016, the defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the single name on the ground of the instant division contract with respect to the above D forest.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to implement to the plaintiff the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the instant partition contract with respect to the defendant's share in the forest of this case 2727/5752.

3. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff did not pay the defendant the exchange cost of E and F and the total acquisition tax of the plaintiff before the division of the land of this case. Thus, it is alleged that the plaintiff cannot accept the claim of this case until the plaintiff is paid the above expenses. Thus, even if the plaintiff had the obligation to pay the above expenses to the defendant, there is no ground to view that the plaintiff's obligation to pay the above expenses is related to the defendant's obligation to transfer the ownership of this case and the performance. Thus, the above argument of the defendant is without merit.

4. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.