1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On June 18, 1993, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Incheon on November 2, 1991, for the land of 287 square meters (hereinafter “land prior to division”). The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land prior to division on June 24, 1993, the maximum amount of claims KRW 9.9 million, and the registration of ownership transfer on the land prior to the division on June 23, 1993 by establishing a contract with the obligor.

B. On July 11, 2018, the land before subdivision was divided into the land of 280 square meters in Jung-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “land after subdivision”) and the land of 7 square meters in Jung-gu, Incheon Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul Special Metropolitan City”). In accepting the said D land, Jung-gu Office, Incheon Metropolitan City paid compensation 2,153,660 won to the Plaintiff on September 13, 2018, in return for cancelling the registration of the creation of neighboring mortgage in the Plaintiff’s name on the said land.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. On June 1993, the Plaintiff concluded a sales contract to purchase 1/2 shares of the land before subdivision from the Defendant for KRW 9.9 million. On June 23, 1993, the Plaintiff paid the purchase price of KRW 9.9 million in total.

However, it is difficult for the plaintiff to obtain the qualification certificate for acquisition of farmland necessary for the registration of transfer, and only completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring land under the plaintiff's name

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on June 23, 1993 with respect to the one-half share of land after partitioning to the plaintiff.

B. It is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff’s purchase and sale contract was concluded solely on the basis of the facts examined earlier between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the land before subdivision, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.