1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. On August 1971, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant is liable to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate, since the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and paid KRW 72,000 by August 31, 1971.

B. Determination 1) First, as to whether the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant for the real estate in this case, and as to whether it is consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, Gap evidence Nos. 2 (sale Contract) appears to be different from the Defendant’s seal affixed on the Defendant’s name and affixed on the Defendant’s tax ledger No. 14, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the above document, and thus, it cannot be used as evidence. In addition, although the Plaintiff submitted each receipt (Evidence No. 3-1, 2-3, evidence No. 7, 8, Eul evidence No. 9, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 7, and Eul evidence No. 7, the entire purport of the pleadings at the video of Eul evidence No. 7, the following facts and circumstances, namely, (i) the Plaintiff’s domicile at the address in the intermediate payment receipt among the above receipts, and (ii) the remainder of the Plaintiff’s domicile at the expiration of 197.8, the Plaintiff’s resident registration address at the above time of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul.