1. The Defendant’s KRW 219,161,250 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from March 23, 2012 to February 2, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. Before September 4, 1997, the 1,187 square meters in Kimhae-si divided into D 980 square meters in a 980 square meters and C 207 square meters in a 207 square meters. Around April 25, 2012, E 69 square meters in a E field and F 83 square meters in a 55 square meters in a C field were divided into 55 square meters in a around April 25, 2012, and the same year.

8. 20. The land category was changed to the gas station site.

The land before the division is “Before the instant partition,” and the land at the time of the above Kimhae-si is “the land No. 1” and the land at the same time 980 square meters per the above D 2.

(B) On August 19, 1964, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on August 19, 1956 pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for Transfer, etc. of Distribution Farmland Ownership under the name of G on August 19, 1964. (B) The Defendant, who is G, completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the instant land No. 1 on November 19, 2007, based on inheritance on August 31, 1990. On March 23, 2012, H and I sold the said money to H and I for KRW 219,161,250. At that time, H and I received the said money from H and I, and completed the registration of transfer of ownership for the reason of the said sale to H and I on the 30th of the same month. [In the absence of any dispute over recognition, the purport of each of the items in subparagraphs 1, 2, and 5, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s argument is that the Plaintiff’s land before the instant partition was title trusted to G, and the Defendant, the inheritor of G, was divided from H and I on March 23, 2012 to H and I on the land before the instant partition, and the Plaintiff of the land No. 1 divided from the land before the instant partition, claiming that the remaining land is 55 square meters, which appears to be a clerical error, but it appears to be a clerical error, even if the Plaintiff received the price after selling the land, and did not return it to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the said price as unjust enrichment or

B. Examining the evidence as seen earlier and the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements Nos. 8 and 9 as to the land of this case divided from the land of this case before the division, the same year as to the land of this case, which was divided from the land of this case before the division, around Sep. 4, 1997.

8.27. The registration of ownership transfer for the acquisition of land for public use by consultation.