1. The plaintiff's main claim against the defendant Republic of Korea shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's defendant B and C.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the instant real estate, the Defendant Republic of Korea completed the registration of initial ownership (hereinafter “registration of initial ownership”) with the Changwon District Court Joint District Court No. 42134, Oct. 27, 1994.

B. The Defendant, at least from December 31, 1980, occupies the instant real estate from around December 31, 1980, and up to now plants and rice sheds on the ground.

【Defendants Republic of Korea: The non-contentious facts, entry of Gap evidence 1, testimony of witness E, fact-finding results on Gohap-gun, defendant B and C, each of whom constitutes confessions.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) purchased on January 27, 1962 from Defendant Republic of Korea (competent Cheong Chang-gu Office) with the property devolving upon ownership, and paid 1,000 won of the purchase price. The Plaintiff’s attached G purchased the said real estate again from the netF around 1963, and the Plaintiff donated the said real estate from the net G around 1980.

(2) Although the above real estate was sold to the deceased F, the defendant Republic of Korea completed the registration of initial ownership of this case in his name. The defendant Republic of Korea sought the cancellation of the above registration of initial ownership in subrogation of the defendant B and C, who is the heir of the deceased F, and the defendant B and C sought the implementation of the registration of initial ownership transfer due to sale around 1963.

B. (1) The act of selling a parcel of land belonging to the government agency is an administrative disposition and its ownership is automatically transferred to a purchaser without requiring registration if the purchaser completely pays the purchase price in light of Article 22 of the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the State (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da49459, Feb. 13, 1998). However, although the Plaintiff claims the above surrounding claim on the premise that the real estate in this case is a property belonging to the State, the following items in the evidence Nos. 2 and 12 are alone stated.