1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that point.

(2) Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in each statement in B-10, the real estate ownership status as of the Defendant’s past and the date of closing argument is as listed below, and the land seems consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion is 7 land. However, the above land was unclaimed from the Yang-gun on January 10, 2014 when the Defendant developed up around 1980 and cultivated for about 30 years, and only can it be recognized that the Defendant purchased the above land by saving agricultural income, rent income, pension, etc.

From December 21, 1991 to December 21, 1991, 200 2,538 m2,532 m2,532, which was owned by 4,538 m2,538 m2,500 m2,500 m2,500 m2,57 m2,231 m2,330 m2,500 m2,500 m2,57 m2,63 m2,50 m2,62,50 m2,500 m2,63 m2,50 m2,97 m2,5 m2,500 m2,63 m2,50 m2,000 m2,000 m2,63 m2,000 m2,63 m2,000 m2,67 m2,014.

As above, the divided land was owned solely by the Defendant through the division of co-owners and co-owned properties on May 23, 2013, as set out in the 9-do Yang-gun Qu-gun 5,425.9 square meters.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.