1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff owned the land of 80 square meters in Jeju Island and 65.92 square meters (hereinafter “instant warehouse”) on the ground of the C-U.S. 80 square meters and the miscellaneous miscellaneous roof 15.92 square meters on September 3, 2002. On September 3, 2002, K sold 10,459 square meters of the instant orchard, including the instant C orchard, to K, and K sold 10 square meters of the said orchard from September 3, 2002 to September 10, 202 to E, F, H, and G, and on October 21, 2002, the warehouse still remains in the name of the Plaintiff.

B. On the other hand, the transfer registration of ownership was completed on October 21, 2002 between the above E and three others on October 21, 2002, on the ground of the sale on October 18, 2002.

C. E transferred 1/3 shares to I in relation to the orchard on February 10, 2004 (hereinafter “instant orchard”) total of 13 parcels of land (hereinafter “instant orchard”).

On February 11, 2006, the Defendant purchased the instant orchard from the I, F, H, and G (hereinafter “I and 3 others”) the instant orchard on the ground of the instant orchard, taking into account the following: (a) the content of the special agreement; and the testimony of the witness D in the first instance trial; and (b) it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant purchased the instant orchard from the I and 3 other. When concluding a sales contract to purchase the instant orchard for KRW 500 million, the Defendant stated that “the instant orchard including the instant orchard includes the sale of any trees on the land and the articles J 20 square meters (including any unregistered articles) on the surface of the instant orchard, and all superficies on March 2, 2006, the instant orchard was registered for the transfer of ownership only.”

E. In light of the fact that the warehouse of this case around the beginning of November 2006 did not include the above J source in the object of the sales contract between M and the defendant and the non-party 3, and that the actual J number does not exist, the above “J” is deemed to be a clerical error of “M”.