1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

(b) states that “the seller shall grant co-ownership of shares to the buyer with respect to the partitioned road area (214 square meters);

(hereinafter “instant special agreement”). C.

On March 24, 2017, the area of 1,518 square meters prior to Seosan-si was divided into 1,304 square meters prior to D and 214 square meters prior to C (hereinafter “instant land”). D.

On April 4, 2017, the Plaintiff completed the registration of transfer of ownership on March 30, 2017 with respect to 1,304 square meters prior to Seosan-si D.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for one-half of the land in this case according to the special agreement of this case to the plaintiff.

3. According to the instant special agreement, if the contract area becomes 1,411 square meters [1,304 square meters (214 square meters * 1/24 square meters)] and the contract area is less than the sales price reduced or does not match with that of the first contract, and in relation to the instant sales contract, the witness E who negotiated contract with the defendant with the view that the sales area of the instant sales contract is reduced compared to the first sales contract is less than that of the first sales contract. The meaning of the instant special agreement is to include the instant special agreement in the meaning that the Plaintiff should compensate the Plaintiff, considering the fact that the buyer E who negotiated contract with the defendant has reduced the sales area of the instant sales contract compared to the first sales contract. In view of the fact that the right of use is not specified and the meaning of the instant special agreement is to transfer the share of 1/15 percent through the subdivision of the instant land when the neighboring land is developed, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge the transfer registration of ownership as to the instant share.

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.