1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the cause of claim;

A. On October 11, 201, the Plaintiff purchased the land allotted in recompense for development outlay specified in attached Table 2 (hereinafter “instant land allotted in recompense for development outlay”) from the GJ, which was the president of the Defendant F-F Land Readjustment Association (hereinafter “Defendant Union”), via K Co., Ltd. and limited liability companies L, and registered the land as the owner of the instant land allotted in recompense for development recompense in the land ledger kept by the Defendant Union on June 30, 2012.

B. Since then, the ownership of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant B, etc.”) in the name of Defendant B, C, and D was registered as to the land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay, including the land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay of this case. The Plaintiff did not sell the land allotted by the authorities in recompense of development outlay

This was the result of the GJ, which was the president of the Defendant Union, double sale of the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay for development outlay, including Defendant B, to Defendant B, and D. The Defendants, as the Defendants, had already sold the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay to the Plaintiff and could have sufficiently known that the Plaintiff had been registered in the register of the authorities in recompense for development recompense for development outlay for the Plaintiff as the right holder. Accordingly, a sales contract concluded between the GJ and Defendant B, and D

C. Therefore, the above Defendants are primarily obligated to perform the procedure for cancellation of the owner’s name on the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, including Defendant B, in the register of land allotted by the Defendant Cooperatives kept in possession of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff and the Defendants (Defendant E, H, and I are the successors of the deceasedJ) seek confirmation that the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay

2. Determination

A. It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone contains the land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay, including Defendant B.

1) The current status of the register of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay in the custody of the Defendant Cooperatives is as shown in the annexed sheet of land allotted by the authorities in recompense for development outlay (as a result of the fact-finding conducted by the Nam-gu Office at the port of this court, the entry is based on the land substitution authorization on February 28, 2006 for land allotted by the Mingt 987.