1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 1995, the Plaintiff et al. and five others entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 107,280,000 square meters (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) of Gyeonggi-gun Co., Ltd. and KRW 5911 square meters (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”), and paid the Defendant the full payment of the purchase price until February 6, 1996.

B. On July 23, 1997, the land prior to the instant subdivision was divided into D 1653 square meters, E 948 square meters, F 495 square meters on June 15, 199, G 562 square meters, H 578 square meters, H 106 square meters, and C 609 square meters, respectively.

C. On July 3, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional disposition prohibiting the disposal of land E, F, and I (hereinafter “each of the instant lands”) with the Suwon District Court as the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer under the instant sales contract, and received a provisional disposition from the said court (2014Kadan732).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 9 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the land before the instant partition with J, and agreed to divide the land D, E, and F as owned by the Plaintiff, and that the remaining land will be divided as owned by J, and also known to the Defendant.

However, in collusion with the defendant, the J sold the above D land to K and L, a third party and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and sold C, G, and H land to a third party and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future.

As a result, the plaintiff holds the right to claim ownership transfer registration on each of the lands of this case, which are the remainder of the land. Thus, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration on each of the lands of this case.

3. In light of the judgment, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff alone purchased each of the instant land, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise, and the Plaintiff is not the Plaintiff.