1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 20, 1995, the Defendant completed the registration of preservation of ownership on the 1,777 square meters (which was divided into 1,52 square meters prior to C, and 255 square meters prior to D) prior to the Seoul, Young-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

B. On March 7, 1989, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 2,360 square meters (which was divided into 1,874 square meters before E, 874 square meters, 80 square meters before F, and 406 square meters before G) adjacent to the said land.

C. On June 25, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to transfer to the Defendant the Plaintiff 255 square meters of the size of the land, which was connected in order to each point of 4, 5, 6, 7, and 4 indicated in the attached Form No. 4, 5, 6, 7, and 4, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to transfer the 80 square meters of the size of 255 square meters of the attached Form No. 2, 3, 4, 13, and 2.

In accordance with the above agreement, the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer by combining 80 square meters with C on July 6, 2010, 2010, the F. 80 square meters prior to Sejong-gun.

E. On June 25, 2010, the date of the above agreement, the Plaintiff sold 255 square meters of land to H on June 25, 2010, the date of the agreement.

(However, the defendant was stated as the seller under the sales contract). [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 4 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. A. Around June 25, 2010, the Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant concluded an agreement with the Defendant to return the instant land to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on the instant land to the Plaintiff on the grounds of the agreement for return on June 25, 2010.

B. It is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant agreed to return the instant land to the Plaintiff on or around June 25, 2010 only with each of the descriptions of Gap 34, Gap 34, and 5 (including each number), witness I, and J’s testimony, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Rather, the following circumstances revealed in addition to the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s land (F and D) to be exchanged on June 25, 2010.