1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the birth of the network C, the birth of the deceased C, and the defendant is the wife of the network C.

B. On June 11, 1943, when the deceased on July 10, 2008, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant on the ground of inheritance due to an agreement division, as the real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant land”) purchased by the deceased E, the father of the deceased D and the deceased C, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. On April 22, 2008, before the Plaintiff’s assertion, on April 22, 2008, the deceased C prepared a written confirmation that “this case’s land is the Plaintiff’s real estate, and thus, attached with a certificate of seal imprint” (hereinafter “instant confirmation”). The instant confirmation is accompanied by a certificate of personal seal impression issued by the deceased C himself on the same day (Evidence A 3-2). Thus, the Defendant, the deceased’s heir, is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the instant land based on the agreement under the instant confirmation.

B. The written confirmation of this case submitted by the plaintiff to the gist of the defendant's assertion is not worth being admitted as evidence as a copy because it is not possible to recognize the existence and authenticity of its establishment.

C. The submission of the judgment 1 document shall be the original, and the submission of evidence by a simple copy shall not be the original, but the submission of evidence by a simple copy is unlawful in principle as a matter of course because there is no guarantee of accuracy. Thus, if there is a dispute over the existence of the original and the authenticity of the establishment, and there is an objection against the other party on the substitution of the original document, a copy may not be substituted by the original. On the other hand, if a copy is submitted as the original, the copy shall be an independent documentary evidence.