1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff in respect of the conjunctive claim that orders performance below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a child of C, and the defendant is the husband of D, who is a father of C's father.

B. On April 17, 1976, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 12, 1983 under the name of the Defendant on May 11, 1983, with respect to the Daejeon Seodong-gu E 17,554§³ (5310.06 square meters) and F forest 2,479 square meters (749.87 square meters; hereinafter “the real estate before the instant division”) and the forest 2,479 square meters (hereinafter “the real estate before the instant division”).

C. However, on August 12, 1997, the area of land E 17,544 square meters of land in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon Pungdong is 17,147 square meters of G forest, and the area of F forest 2,479 square meters of land was each registration conversion into 2,294 square meters prior to H around that time (hereinafter “instant three real estate”).

After that, the land category of G 17,147 square meters was divided into G 200 square meters (the land category was changed to the site on May 27, 2003; hereinafter “instant one real estate”), I forest 1,308 square meters, J forest 645 square meters (each divided on August 12, 1997), K 1,542 square meters prior to K (the divided on March 2, 200), L previous 460 square meters (the divided on April 8, 200), M 12,91 square meters (the divided on May 27, 2003; hereinafter “instant 2 real estate”).

E. C died on January 16, 1990.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4-5, 6, Gap evidence No. 6-3, Gap evidence No. 12-1 through 12, Gap evidence No. 14, Gap evidence No. 18-1, 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. On the grounds of the agreement on January 21, 1990 against the Defendant, the Defendant asserts that the instant primary claim seeking the registration of ownership transfer of the instant real estate on the ground of the agreement against the Defendant, constitutes the exercise of the right to claim inheritance recovery, and thus, constitutes an exercise of the right to claim inheritance recovery, and that the instant claim filed ten years after the date of the infringement, is unlawful.

The ownership by inheritance is based on the premise that he is the true inheritor.