The part of the judgment below against the plaintiff concerning the claim for implementation of the procedure for filing a land transaction application.

1. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal

A. As to the primary claim portion, the court below dismissed all the Plaintiff’s primary claim by deeming that the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff cannot be recognized that there was a land distribution agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on May 6, 2005.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no violation of the rules of evidence or omission of judgment.

B. As to the claim for the execution of the procedure for filing a land transaction application among the conjunctive claims, the lower court: (a) determined that the Defendant succeeded to the seller’s status under the instant sales contract on the grounds stated in its reasoning by deeming the subject matter of the instant sales contract as the shares of 7464/10312 of the land before subdivision; and (b) accepted the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim as to the Plaintiff’s shares of 3732/10312 of the Plaintiff’s shares (=7464/10312 of shares x

However, the above judgment of the court below is not acceptable for the following reasons.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and the record, the Plaintiff asserted that the subject matter of the instant sales contract was part of the share (7464/10312) of the land before subdivision in the original complaint. However, on July 13, 2010 and on April 21, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that the purport of the claim, the cause modification application, and the statement of grounds for appeal were a certain size (7,464m2) of the land before subdivision. In the appellate court’s application for the purport of the claim and the cause modification of the cause modification of the land of October 24, 2011, the Plaintiff asserted that “the land after subdivision of the land equivalent to the share of the land among the land before subdivision was made pursuant to the instant sales contract, I or J, and K’s 12 lots,” and the Plaintiff’s assertion as to the subject matter of the instant sales contract was not clearly organized.

On the other hand, the plaintiff and C have already been significant part of the land before subdivision.