1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant, based on the primary assertion, agreed with Nonparty D (hereinafter “the Nonparty”) on the change of land category of 444 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) into the site, and agreed to allow the transfer of registration after changing the land category into the site. If it is impossible to change land category, the Defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for the transfer of ownership for the instant land to the Plaintiff on August 25, 2014, on the ground that the transfer agreement was made between Nonparty and Nonparty D (hereinafter “the Nonparty”).

B. Preliminary assertion is that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from the Nonparty on August 25, 2014, and thus, the Nonparty’s exercise the right to claim ownership transfer registration against the Defendant. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the instant land based on the transfer agreement concluded on August 25, 2014.

C. In light of the principle of good faith, the Defendant is obliged to change the land category of the instant land to the site and to transfer the land to the Nonparty, but fails to perform its duty. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for transfer registration of ownership due to an agreement on transfer made on August 25, 2014 to the Plaintiff on the instant land.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. We examine the judgment on the main argument of the Plaintiff, and as shown in the Plaintiff’s above facts, it is difficult to believe that Gap evidence Nos. 5 (written confirmation of facts) is consistent with the Plaintiff’s above facts, and it is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s above facts merely with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4. There is no other evidence to acknowledge them.

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the conjunctive argument No. 1, it is recognized that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Nonparty to purchase the instant land on August 25, 2014.

However, the Plaintiff’s registered titleholder on the instant land by subrogation of the Nonparty.