1. Of the 2,443 square meters in the warehouse site B in Gangseo-si, the Defendant also indicated the attached Table 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 27, 26, 25, on the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 14, 1971, the Plaintiff completed registration of initial ownership in accordance with Act No. 2111 relating to No. 2,344 of the forest land B in Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do, which was located before the subdivision.

B. On November 27, 1975, the forest land was divided into three parcels outside the 2,324 square meters (hereinafter “land before division”). On August 16, 1978, the Plaintiff completed the ownership transfer registration for the land before division to C on August 14, 1978 (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer registration”).

C. Since July 19, 1994, the land before subdivision was re-divided into three parcels outside 2,443 square meters of forest land B in Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do (hereinafter “instant land”). The Defendant acquired the ownership of the instant land on July 28, 2004 through the aforementioned C, etc. in sequence.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's main claim and the conjunctive claim are not legally incompatible in light of the cause of the claim. Thus, the plaintiff's main claim and the conjunctive claim cannot be viewed as "selective claim". However, the plaintiff's main claim and the conjunctive claim are to be judged in the order of the plaintiff's main claim and conjunctive claim.

Plaintiff’s assertion

(1) On August 14, 1978, the Plaintiff sold to C only the remaining part of the land before subdivision including the instant land at the time of selling the land before subdivision. However, for convenience, the registration was completed as to the entire land before subdivision including the instant dispute portion.

(2) Ultimately, since the Plaintiff is deemed to have held title trust with C of the dispute part in this case, the ownership transfer registration of this case completed with respect to the dispute part in this case is null and void in accordance with the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name (hereinafter “Real Estate Real Name Act”).

(3) However, based on the registration of ownership transfer in this case, the Defendant’s registration title concerning the instant dispute is invalid.