1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of premise;

A. Each land listed in the separate sheet is co-owned with co-owned relation, and each land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 4 and 5 of the land of this case and each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2 and 3 of the separate sheet was owned individually by the plaintiff from January 4, 199.

B. On March 2, 2001, on each land listed in the separate sheet, the entry registration date of the decision on voluntary commencement of auction by the Government District Court C on March 2, 2001, the land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) and the land listed in the separate sheet Nos. 4 and 5 were completed on June 30, 201, respectively.

C. After that, on February 7, 2003, the registration of ownership transfer for the land of this case was completed on October 4, 1999.

1) On May 25, 2005, the execution court decided to permit the sale to the highest bidder F on the land of this case, and on July 1, 2005, F acquired the ownership of the land of this case in full.

3) On January 18, 2006, the execution court rendered a provisional decision on the refusal of sale on the grounds that the highest bidder G did not submit the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland for each land listed in attached list 2-5. On March 31, 2006, the appellate court revoked the first instance decision and rendered a decision on permission for sale on the ground that the instant land was not farmland prescribed in the Farmland Act. The Plaintiff re-appealed to the Supreme Court (2006Ma661, etc.). The Supreme Court Decision 2006Ma61, etc. is reversed on the grounds that there was no evidence that the execution court notified the interested party of the auction date to the Plaintiff, who is an interested party, was unable to lawfully proceed with compulsory execution without notifying the auction date and the auction date.