1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (see the attached drawing) purchased from G to G in the rice of Pyeongtaek-si H, 215 square meters and unregistered houses on the ground of which the Plaintiff purchased from G in the rice of 30 households. At the time, the Plaintiff, “F large 96 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”), which was used as the end of the instant building, demanded that G purchase the instant land together with “F large 96 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). At the time, LI (G’s mother-child) and G sought the Defendant B, the owner of the instant land, and purchased the instant land on behalf of the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership from J (G's birth) on January 23, 1982 with respect to the above H, but defendant B failed to obtain the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the land in this case.

However, on May 27, 2016, Defendant B donated the instant land to, and completed the registration of ownership transfer to, the remaining Defendants, who were the ASEAN and the grandchildren.

Therefore, the Plaintiff sought against Defendant B the performance of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale on 1972 (a preliminaryly, if G purchased the instant land from Defendant B, the Plaintiff seeks the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer against Defendant B in subrogation of G, and the Plaintiff seeks implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer registration under the name of the remaining Defendants, since the said donation contract against the remaining Defendants is null and void as a juristic act contrary to social order by subrogation of the Defendant B.

B. The principal evidence submitted by the Plaintiff reveals that Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 2, 5, 6, and 3-2, 3-3, 4-4, 6-1, 6-2, and 6-2, and 3-2 of Gap evidence Nos. 3-2 (Evidence No. 2, 1976, which the plaintiff sent to the defendant Eul) among the evidences submitted by the plaintiff, there is evidence Nos. 1-2, 3-3 (Evidence No. 4, 1976, which was sent to the plaintiff by the defendant Eul).