1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants is dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 28, 2001, on the land owned by the Plaintiff, the land was divided into two hundred and sixty-seven square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). On the register of the instant land, the name of the owner was registered as “D” due to the error in the computer transfer process, and was corrected on June 21, 2004, and the address A was corrected to “A” on July 13, 2004.

B. As to the instant land, the Daegu District Court and the racing branch of the Daegu District Court completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the Defendant Republic of Korea (the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) (hereinafter “registration of transfer of ownership”) on July 13, 2004, as the receipt of No. 4104 on June 16, 2004, under the name of the Defendant Korea (the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport), and the registration of transfer of ownership under the name of the Daegu District Court and the Daegu District Court racing support (hereinafter “registration of transfer of ownership of No. 1”) on April 11, 2013, as the receipt of No. 20668-5 on February 23, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. At the time of the expropriation of the instant land, Defendant Korea Rail Network Authority notified the Plaintiff’s address stated in the register of the instant land to “F of the Sungsung-gun,” but as a result, it was impossible to serve the Plaintiff’s resident registration, applied for adjudication to the Central Land Expropriation Committee without confirming the Plaintiff’s resident registration address, and completed the registration of ownership transfer after depositing the expropriation compensation in accordance with

As can be seen, the registration of transfer of title No. 1 based on the expropriation ruling, which was made without lawful notice of land expropriation, is null and void, and the registration of transfer of title No. 2, which was made based on the registration of invalidation of cause, is also null and void. Thus, the Defendants are liable to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of transfer registration of title No. 1 and 2,

(each primary claim).

Of the land of this case, the annexed drawings Nos. 11, 12, 13, 14, 14.