1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim against Defendant B is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the instant land, Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on March 17, 1952 as the receipt No. 166, which was received on March 17, 1952.

B. On November 27, 2001, Defendant B purchased the instant land from Defendant C and completed the registration of ownership transfer to the above purport under the Changwon District Court of Seoul High Court No. 17242, Dec. 4, 2001.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1-5 and 2-2 of evidence No. 1-2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. On August 31, 1974, the Plaintiff asserted that the land of this case was purchased from Defendant C’s father He purchased from Defendant C’s father Heed.

When the Plaintiff was unable to complete the registration of transfer of ownership with respect to the instant land, Defendant B deceiving Defendant C without any title and completed the registration of transfer of ownership under Defendant B.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to perform the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on August 31, 1974 with respect to the instant land to the Plaintiff, and Defendant B is obligated to cancel the registration of ownership transfer under Defendant B’s name with respect to the instant land, who subrogated Defendant C with the right to claim the registration of ownership transfer as preserved bond.

3. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from the deceased E even if considering the result of the on-site inspection in addition to the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 10 and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and witness F’s testimony as to the Plaintiff’s claim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land from the deceased E ( even if the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract on the instant land with the deceased E, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the deceased E was granted the right of representation for the sale of the instant land). This part of the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless

4. The obligor who is to be preserved by subrogation in the creditor subrogation lawsuit as to whether the part of the claim against the Defendant B, among the instant lawsuit, is lawful.