1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Since around 1966, C purchased the instant land, which is part of the area of 317,654 square meters of forest E-Gun, Seongbuk-do, Seongbuk-do, Seongbuk-do (hereinafter “Before partition”).

B. After all, on August 31, 1970, registration of ownership preservation was made in F and G name with respect to the land before subdivision, and some shares of the land before subdivision were transferred to H and I on December 31, 1973.

C. On December 17, 1984, the land before subdivision was divided into the instant land and the instant land. The registration of the F and G name completed with respect to the land after subdivision was transferred to H and I, and the registration of H and I name was transferred to H and G, respectively.

After all, on December 17, 1984 with respect to two-eights of each of the instant land, the registration of ownership transfer was made under the name of J and K on December 17, 1984, and the registration of ownership transfer was made on March 26, 2004 with respect to the instant land under the name of the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 5 through 8 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff, as to the main claim, argued to the effect that L was responsible for the registration of ownership transfer as to the land in the dispute in this case, which was the owner of the land in this case. The plaintiff acquired the land in this case, and the plaintiff purchased the land in the dispute in this case from L around 1967. On November 19, 1984, H and I entered into a contract with M to transfer the land in this case to the plaintiff when entering into a co-owned property partition contract with the defendant on November 19, 1984. Thus, the defendant is liable for the plaintiff to perform the registration of ownership transfer as to the land in this case.

In light of the contents of evidence No. 4-1 and No. 2 as shown in the plaintiff's assertion, it is difficult to believe that each statement of evidence No. 4-2 is a witness I, L's testimony, and evidence No. 3-1 and No. 2.