1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On May 10, 2006, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, D, E, and F entered the ownership transfer registration for the instant land between South and North Korea, and on May 10, 2006, each of the above five shares was completed on the grounds of inheritance as of January 2, 1992.

B. Of them, E’s shares were transferred in succession to G, H, which is the third village of May 10, 2006, and in March 3, 2008, to I, which is the children of G.

On the other hand, D's above shares were purchased by the F in the procedure of the compulsory auction by official auction by the Changwon District Court.

C. As to the instant land, the Plaintiff, Defendant, and I currently hold 656.8/3,284 shares, and F holds 1,313.6/3,284 shares.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion and the defendant, E, and F agreed to transfer E's share to G and H, which is a great degree of contribution to the disposal of the land of this case, in around 2006, for the following reasons: (a) the plaintiff's assertion and the defendant, E, and F transferred to G and H, which is a great degree of contribution to the grandparents' order and for the collection of funeral expenses; (b) the plaintiff paid the debt amount of KRW 24 million for the seizure and provisional seizure of the land of this case; and (c) the parent-friendly K paid the funeral expenses; (d) the F's share is held by F for the collection of expenses for the institution of the plaintiff's death and for the management of the defendant's share after transferring to the plaintiff; and (e) the four parties agreed to equally divide the shares of this case

However, since D is missing until now, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to 1/4 of the defendant's shares in the land of this case to the plaintiff pursuant to the above agreement

B. Even based on all evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to acknowledge that there was an agreement between the original Defendant and the original Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the agreement.

Furthermore, even if there was such an agreement, D, which is the premise of division, does not lead well to the family life.