1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Defendant B on April 9, 2009 against Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court 2009Gau2398, and the above court rendered a decision on performance recommendation that “Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 11 million per annum from March 14, 1999 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, 25% per annum from March 14, 1999 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.” The above performance recommendation decision was finalized on May 9, 2009.

B. On the instant land, the Daejeon District Court’s budget registry office of the Daejeon District Court was 6480 on November 11, 1961, and the registration of joint ownership was completed in the name of Defendant B, K, and L on the ground of “trade as of October 20, 1961.”

After May 11, 2007, with respect to the land in this case, ① the alteration registration of the right in additional registration form due to the death of the joint owner L by the receipt No. 10910 of May 11, 2007, ② the alteration registration of the right in additional registration form based on the receipt No. 10911 of the same registry office on May 11, 2007, ③ the alteration registration of the right in additional registration form based on the “joint owner C or D” as the receipt of the receipt No. 10911 of the same registry office on May 11, 2007, ③ the alteration registration of the right in additional registration form based on “the withdrawal from the joint owner M by the same registry office” under the receipt No. 10912 of May 11,

A. In each order, each of them was made.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit for subrogation of share refund against Defendant C and D, Suwon District Court 2014Kadan30444. The primary claim for the lawsuit was to seek a partition of co-owned property by subrogation against Defendant C and D on the premise that the Defendants’ ownership relation with the land of this case was co-ownership, and the conjunctive claim was to seek a share refund against Defendant C and D on the premise that the Defendants’ ownership relation with the land of this case was co-ownership.

On January 13, 2016, the above court dismissed the Plaintiff’s primary claim on the ground that the preservation of the land is not recognized, and the instant land is the Defendants.