2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. Plaintiff A, B, and Non-Party Network J and Defendant are some of the children of the network K, and Plaintiff C, D, E, F, and G are the spouses and children of the network J.

B. The deceased on November 25, 1965, the deceased on November 25, 1965, and his inheritors, including the plaintiff A, B, the deceased on the part of the deceased and the defendant, inherited the deceased's property as shown in the family registry, and the deceased on June 23, 1994, the plaintiff C, D, E, F, and G succeeded to the deceased's property as shown in the family registry.

C. The Defendant, on March 5, 1981, enacted Act No. 3094 on December 31, 197, with respect to the land of this case, 1,144 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

A. The Act on Special Measures is effective.

) Accordingly, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 10, 1970 on the ground of donation (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”).

(i) [Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiffs are the owners who inherited each of the shares stated in the purport of the claim among the land of this case, and that the ownership transfer registration of this case was completed on January 10, 1970, which was after the deceased K of the network, based on the donation as the grounds for its registration. Thus, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to implement the procedure for the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of this case as to each of the shares stated in the purport of the claim

B. In light of the fact that the Act on Special Measures for Determination permits the de facto assignee of real estate to make registration inconsistent with the process of change in rights, the entry of the seller’s name or the date of purchase in the letter of guarantee or written confirmation is different from the actual one, or the entry of specific reasons for change in rights is omitted in the letter

Even if so, it cannot be said that the legal presumption of its registration is broken, and Supreme Court Decision 9 September 9, 2005.