1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased E (Death of August 20, 1975) had children, such as the deceased G (Death of 2009) between the wife F and the wife F.

The network G had children of Defendant B and the Plaintiff, the South-North of Korea, between the wife H.

Defendant C is a child of Defendant B.

B. On February 3, 1914, the network E transferred ownership of D Dae-si 380 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) from I, a person under the name of the assessment of the situation.

Defendant B obtained a guarantee from J, K, and L on July 15, 1980, and completed registration of preservation of ownership by the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

Defendant B donated the instant land to Defendant C on December 10, 2015, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on January 11, 2016.

C. Meanwhile, on July 15, 1980, the Plaintiff obtained a guarantee from J, K, and L, and completed registration of preservation of ownership by the Act on Special Measures for the Development of Ownership on the 9,917 square meters of M in Seosan-si.

On April 12, 1975, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the children of the network E, including the net G, with the Plaintiff on April 12, 1975, against the Plaintiff and the network E, to implement the procedures for ownership transfer registration on the ground of a sales contract concluded with respect to 10,267 square meters of Nan Forest in Seosan-si (this Court Decision 2005Da1331). In the foregoing case, the decision of recommending settlement was finalized to the effect that the network G implements the procedures for ownership transfer registration on the part of the above land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 12, Eul evidence 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1 was that the Plaintiff, while married in 1966, donated the instant land and the instant land and the instant land on the ground, and thereafter cultivated crops on the instant land until now.

Defendant B, upon obtaining a false guarantee from the guarantor, completed the registration of preservation of ownership of the land of this case.