1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant inherited 5/7 of the shares in the instant land, among the shares in the name of 1/4 of the network D (hereinafter “instant shares”) among the 181m2 in Kimhae-si, Kimhae-si, the Defendant received 5/7 shares out of the shares in the instant land from the deceased Doz E (Death on March 5, 1989) and his wife F (Death on October 11, 1992).

This is E in the family register E

G. Adoption of H;

I. It is based on the statement that the defendant was written as the birth report between F and F.

B. Around November 8, 2007, the Defendant agreed to transfer his inheritance shares, etc. among the instant land shares to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “transfer agreement”) on November 8, 2007.

(C) In the Busan District Court case No. 2009Na2238, which the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant and H, the Defendant was sentenced on December 18, 2009, to the effect that “the Defendant shall implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the transfer agreement on November 8, 2007 with respect to the 5/7 shares out of the instant land shares,” and the judgment was finalized on April 15, 2010 on the ground that the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court (hereinafter “the final judgment of this case”).

(d) On October 26, 201, the Korea Rail Network Authority accepted the instant land’s share on the same day, deposited KRW 19,643,020 as a deposit, which is the nominal owner of the instant land’s share, with the Changwon District Court Decision 201No. 4000, supra, and completed the registration of ownership transfer as to the instant land’s share on or before November 9, 201.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, while the defendant was obligated to transfer ownership of 5/7 of the shares in the land of this case to the plaintiff according to the final judgment of this case, it became impossible to perform the obligation due to expropriation. Accordingly, the defendant, instead of losing ownership of 5/7 of the shares in the land of this case, shall be deemed to have lost ownership of 5/7 of the shares in this case.