1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, on July 4, 1927 due to sale and purchase on June 1, 1927, the deceased F completed the registration of ownership transfer. The deceased G completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 15, 1980 due to sale and purchase on August 8, 1957, and the deceased G G’s owner completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 16, 1982. The deceased L completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 27, 1994, on the part of the deceased LF’s 55.3/284 shares and the deceased G G G’s 228.7/284 shares and the total amount of ownership transfer registration on August 31, 209 due to inheritance, and on August 21, 2001, Defendant C and D completed the registration of ownership transfer on August 24, 2005.

However, since the registration of ownership transfer between the deceased G and the deceased H was caused by an invalid sales contract, each registration of ownership transfer by the Defendants should be cancelled thereafter. Defendant B, the present owner, is liable to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the restoration of real name with respect to the Plaintiff who succeeded to the shares of 4/16 of the instant land.

In addition, Defendant C and D made unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 27.5 million (i.e., KRW 110 million) equivalent to the Plaintiff’s share due to the sale of the instant land against Defendant B (i.e., KRW 4/16). As such, Defendant C and D are obligated to refund KRW 13.75 million equivalent to each inheritance share and damages for delay.

B. The written evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 3 alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that a sales contract which caused the net G on the instant land and the network H’s transfer of ownership is null and void, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the results of the appraisal commission to appraiser I of this Court, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the land of this case is excluded by approximately 70 square meters from the land of this case between the descendants of the net F including the plaintiff, and the net H around August 20, 194.