1. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants and the Defendant (Appointed Party) is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. A. Around January 3, 1976, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion purchased 450 square meters of the land from P and Q from P and Q to P and Q to 27 Ama in order to separately settle the price for the part, in a case where the size of the specific part exceeds 450 square meters as a result of the survey exceeds 450 square meters, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract to the effect that the price for the part should be separately settled.

In addition, the plaintiff, P, and Q confirmed that the part purchased by the plaintiff was about 505 as a result of the survey of the object of the above sales contract, and entered into a sales contract with the purport that the plaintiff purchased the above excess 5 square meters at the end of 3 000 Gama on January 10, 1976.

Therefore, Defendant (Appointed Party), the heir of Defendant B, C, D, E, and net Q, the heir of the network P, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the ground of the above sales contract with respect to the part inherited among the part of 1,670 square meters (e.g., 505 square meters; hereinafter “instant land”) of Cheongyang-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the object of each of the above sales contract between the Plaintiff and P and Q.

B. The Plaintiff submitted a certificate No. 1 (a sales contract) and No. 2 (a supplementary sales contract) to prove that the contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the net P and Q.

As to this, the Defendants and Defendant (Appointed Party) did not have any fact that net P and Q have prepared, signed and sealed it, and they did not have any seal affixed to net P and Q affixed to each of the above contracts (the appointed Party F entered into a sales contract on the instant land orally with the Plaintiff around 1974, but this was rescinded as the Plaintiff’s purchase price was rescinded, and each of the above sales contracts submitted by the Plaintiff was not prepared. Thus, the Plaintiff’s cause of the claim is the Plaintiff.