소유권이전등기
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. On September 20, 1919, September 20, 1919, at the time of the plaintiffs' Japanese occupation occupation, the "F" was written as the owner of the Forest Survey Injury, as to the "F" of the game, which was the original lot number of each real estate of this case before the division of each real estate of this case, as the owner of the Forest Survey Injury. Each real estate of this case was originally acquired by the non-party 1 of the plaintiffs.
After that, on July 29, 1934, the deceased on the deceased on July 29, 193, the deceased non-party H succeeded to Australia. On June 11, 1995, the deceased on June 11, 1995, Plaintiff A, B, C, and D, their children, jointly succeeded to each of the instant real estate, and the Plaintiffs’ inheritance shares are 1/4, respectively.
On the other hand, around April 20, 1962, Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd made registration of preservation of ownership of each real estate of this case, and the defendant succeeded to the rights and duties of the Korea Electric Power Co., Ltd. in succession.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to execute the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the restoration of real name with respect to the portion of 1/4 of each real estate of this case to the plaintiffs who inherited the net G's property in sequential order, and in preliminary case, where it is impossible to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership based on the restoration of real name as above, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the damage compensation amounting to 28,381,701 won and delay damages.
B. Since the Defendant acquired the ownership of each of the instant real estate through the normal procedure, the Plaintiffs cannot be deemed as the owner of each of the instant real estate.
2. The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to view that the real estate of this case was succeeded to the network H and the plaintiffs in order after the plaintiffs had acquired each of the real estate of this case by original acquisition.
Rather, according to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 4 and 6 and the whole pleadings, each of the instant real estate to non-party I before the net G around 1939.