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

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

1. On July 13, 1985, the Plaintiff asserted that the purchase price for the forest of this case was KRW 20 million between K and K, and the contract deposit was paid KRW 10 million on the date of the contract, and the remainder of KRW 10 million was paid until July 13, 1986, and the contract was entered into with the content that there was an expression of intent to complete the sale at the time of payment of the remainder.

The Plaintiff paid K the down payment of KRW 10 million on the day of the said reservation, and paid the remainder KRW 10 million on July 2, 1986 to K for the same day and declared its intent to complete the sale on the same day. As such, K is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the forest land of this case to the Plaintiff on July 2, 1986.

As K dies, the Defendants, as co-inheritors of the deceased, succeeded to the duty to transfer ownership of the forest of this case according to their respective inheritance shares listed in the attached Table. As such, the Defendants are liable to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership of the forest of this case to the Plaintiff according to their respective inheritance shares.

2. It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff expressed its intent to complete the sale by paying a balance of KRW 10 million on July 2, 1986 only with the statement of evidence No. 11 (written confirmation) by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

In addition, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Defendant I, J, and K, around July 2012, agreed on the division of inherited property with the content of Defendant I’s inheritance as a substitute heir of the network K on the whole inherited property, and it is recognized that Defendant B, C, D, and E agreed on the division of inherited property with the content of Defendant E’s sole inheritance (including the net K’s inheritance shares) with respect to the whole inherited property of the network N (including the net K’s inheritance shares). Accordingly, the claim against the above Defendants on the premise that Defendant J, K, B, C, and D is co-inheritors of the network K is without merit.

Furthermore, even if the Plaintiff’s right to claim for the transfer of ownership against the Defendants was recognized on July 2, 1986 as to the forest of this case, the Defendants are above.