1. Of the part concerning the conjunctive claim of the first instance judgment, the Plaintiff falls under the following order to perform.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus cite it as it is in accordance with Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. As to the claim for the ownership transfer registration of the building of this case (the principal claim)

A. After changing the form and quality of the land of this case, the Plaintiff and Defendant B agreed to newly construct the building on the ground of this case for the purpose of using it as a licensed real estate agent office in the future. Accordingly, the Plaintiff transferred each of the costs of changing the form and quality of the land of this case and the construction cost of this case to Defendant B, as well as the total of KRW 140,000,000,000 on October 8, 2009, respectively. Defendant B changed the form and quality of the land of this case with the above money and newly constructed the building of this case.

Therefore, since the building of this case was newly constructed at the Plaintiff’s expense, the original acquisitor of the building of this case is the Plaintiff, and the registration of preservation of ownership completed in Defendant B’s name on the building of this case is the registration of invalidation of cause. Thus, Defendant B is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the building of this case to the Plaintiff.

B. Generally, the fact that Defendant B received KRW 7,000,000 from the Plaintiff on September 14, 2009, and KRW 7,000,00,000 from the Plaintiff is not a dispute between the parties. The fact that a person who constructed a building with his own effort and materials in question is an original acquisition of the ownership of the building (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Da43601, Dec. 18, 2003).

However, in full view of each of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 13, it can be recognized that defendant C, the husband of defendant B or defendant B, created the building site by changing the form and quality of the land in this case and raising the ground, and then his efforts or costs are the same as the facts acknowledged by the plaintiff.