1. The plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The fact that there is no dispute over the recognition of the fact that it has been admitted, the entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, 5, Eul evidence 1 through 5 (including each number), the testimony of Gap witness E, and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. On April 3, 1998, E proposed that “I will make an investment in the land price increase together with the Defendant, who is his wife, around that time, by purchasing G 2,922 square meters, H 4,274 square meters, G 274 square meters, J 274 square meters, J 1,957 square meters, K 734 square meters, and K 734 square meters (the land was merged with the land in this case on May 11, 2005), and at the same time, there was a shortage of the purchase fund.”

Accordingly, the defendant remitted the total amount of KRW 230 million to F as the purchase price of the land of this case on September 13, 1997, KRW 160 million on October 31, 1997, KRW 20 million on April 18, 1998, KRW 230 million on April 18, 1998, and E completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of KRW 40160 on July 7, 1998.

B. L purchased the instant land in KRW 960 million from E on April 20, 2005, and concluded a sales contract with a down payment of KRW 140 million on the date of the contract, the intermediate payment of KRW 40 million on May 16, 2005, and the remainder of KRW 420 million on June 10, 2005 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”).

L paid to E the down payment of KRW 140 million on the date of the contract, and paid KRW 110 million out of the intermediate payment on May 18, 2005, but did not pay the remainder on the ground that there is no access to the land of this case.

E filed a complaint for fabrication of private documents, etc. by asserting that the instant land was combined without one’s approval, thereby continuing disputes arising in relation to the instant land between L and E, and accordingly, the procedure for applying for permission of land transaction did not proceed.

C. L filed a lawsuit against E on February 1, 2006 against the Government District Court 2006Gahap873, which filed a lawsuit against E on the instant land ownership transfer registration.