1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with respect to H 1,220.2 square meters in smuggling, and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) with respect to the 3/13 share.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Basic Facts

The plaintiff and the non-party I (the deceased on November 16, 2003, hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased") are siblings of dead villages. The defendant B is the deceased's spouse, and the rest of the defendants are the deceased's children.

The Deceased owned J land and K 2,707 square meters, and on May 17, 1999, according to the farmland improvement project implemented by the L-si L-si L-si L-si. However, on May 17, 1999, the above J land was replaced with M 2,951.7 square meters and N 1,977.6 square meters, and the above K land was replaced with P 2,161.3 square meters and H 1,220.2 square meters.

【In the absence of any dispute, the Plaintiff claimed the Plaintiff’s claim related to the principal suit as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, including the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) and the Plaintiff purchased from the Deceased for KRW 15,691,70, the assessed price at the time of replotting and paid the purchase price in full.

After the registration of land substitution, the Plaintiff was dismissed on November 16, 2003 on the ground that the deceased would perform the registration procedure of land substitution.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff sought implementation of the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on sale around May 1999 with respect to the shares of inheritance (Defendant B 3/13, and the remaining Defendants 2/13) as to the land of this case to the Defendants, their successors.

The Deceased did not sell the instant land to the Plaintiff in relation to the Defendants’ counterclaim claim.

Therefore, the Plaintiff should deliver the instant land to the Defendants, a joint heir of the Deceased.

Judgment

In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from the deceased around May 199, in view of whether to enter into a sales contract for the instant land between the Plaintiff and the deceased, and the purport of the entire arguments as stated in the Evidence Nos. 2 and 13, respectively.

The plaintiff around April 2015 to the defendant B, who is the deceased's spouse.