1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. As to the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached Table No. 1 (hereinafter “instant one land”) in the forest survey report prepared during the Japanese occupation point period, C is considered to have received the assessment of the relevant land, and as to the real estate listed in paragraph (2) of the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter “instant two land”), it is indicated that D and six other persons were under the circumstances.

B.1) On January 10, 1994 with respect to the land of this case, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of the gift made on June 30, 1984.2) On the land of this case, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of the sale made on February 5, 1974. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of the sale made on June 21, 1982. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on June 21, 1982 with respect to the share of 3/18 of this case, F and G, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of the sale made on June 18, 1982. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 10, 2004 on the E's share due to the consultation made on July 2, 1982. The entire registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of the co-owner's share transfer made on June 25, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including all branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion Nos. 1 and 2 owned by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant agreed to complete the registration of ownership transfer to the Plaintiff, who is the owner of each of the instant land, around March 7, 2014.

Therefore, the defendant should implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on the ground of the above agreement to the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to transfer the registration title of each of the instant land to the Plaintiff.

There is no evidence to regard each of the instant lands as the Plaintiff’s ownership, unlike the registration name.

Rather, according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 through 7 and the whole argument, each of the instant cases.