1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The network D had the Plaintiff, E, and Defendant, etc. as their children under the chain.

B. On May 11, 1985, the registration procedure for transfer of ownership was completed on October 1, 1970, with respect to one half of the two parcels of land of Sejong Special Self-Governing City C (Gu Chungcheong-gun C) and 1261 square meters (hereinafter “instant land before subdivision”).

Before subdivision, the instant land was divided into C 1,035 square meters on April 21, 2006, and the said C land was subdivided into the instant land and F 517 square meters on February 18, 2014.

With respect to the instant land and the instant F land on March 4, 2014, a share transfer registration based on a partition of co-owned property has been completed, and the instant land became owned solely by the Defendant, and the said F land became owned solely by E.

C. On March 31, 2014, E completed the registration of ownership transfer in G due to sale on the same day, and paid the purchase price to the Plaintiff.

On October 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter stating, “I will pay A in full at the time of receipt of compensation or value of the area for half of the final answer area of 312.3 square meters in Yeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do; and (b) if B will be received after death, H and I will be responsible for and paid to A.” (hereinafter “each of the instant notes”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 11, Gap evidence 11, E's testimony and purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff should complete the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the land of this case for the following reasons.

1) [The instant land was donated to the Plaintiff by the deceased D according to the invalid title trust agreement. It was legally impossible for the Plaintiff to register the ownership transfer under the Plaintiff’s name as a U.S. citizen at the time. Thus, the Plaintiff and the Defendant.