A. Defendant ○○ completed the receipt No. 2509 on January 31, 1996 with respect to each real estate listed in the separate sheet by the ○○ District Court ○○○○ registry office as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet;

B. Defendant Lee ○-○ completed on January 7, 2004 as the receipt No. 583 of the same registry office with respect to each real estate listed in the same list;

C. Defendant Cho ○○ completed on January 7, 2004 as the receipt No. 584 of receipt on January 7, 2004 with respect to shares of 1/2 of each of the real estate listed in the same list;

The procedure for the cancellation registration of each transfer of ownership shall be implemented.

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

A. At the time of the Japanese colonial era, the forest survey was prepared under the Forest Survey Order, 000 ○○○○○○○-gun, ○○○○-gun, ○○○○-gun, ○○○-gun, and ○○○○-gun, hereinafter referred to as the “former land”). The date of the report and notice was recorded on March 2, 1932 (seven years). On July 2, 1935, 1935, ○○-do, which was entered into force on June 22, 1935, 1935, 66, which was included in the above old land, in the above ○○-do, ○○○-do, ○○○-do, ○○○-do, a public announcement was made that ○○○-do, including the above ○○○-do, was included in the above land’s forest and management network, and ○○-do, including the instant forest and forest.

"C. The old land of this case became each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case") on December 1, 1967 and March 1, 1996 following procedures such as division and registration conversion, and change of administrative district, etc. on March 1, 1996. As the deceased on January 17, 1995, the plaintiffs, who are inheritors, completed the registration of ownership transfer for each land of this case on January 20, 1996, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 31, 196 when the defendant ○○○ permitted payment in kind of inheritance tax due to the death of the deceased ○○○○○○○○ on January 31, 196. < Amended by Act No. 5196, Jan. 31, 1996>

E. However, according to the public notice on the incorporation of the above reserved forest, the defendant Lee ○○ filed a lawsuit against the defendant ○○ on the ground that he is the sole heir of the network Lee○○, which is indicated as the owner of the above land in the public notice on the incorporation of the above reserved forest, seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration on each of the land in this case (○○ District Court ○○○○○○○○ Branch 2002Gahap2637) and the judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant ○○○ on September 19, 2003. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time. According to the reasoning of the above judgment, the registration of ownership transfer on the above land in the name of the title holder of the above old land and the title holder on the public notice on the reserved forest was destroyed by clarifying that there is a separate ownership registration on the above land, and as a result, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiffs and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant ○○○○.

F. According to the above final judgment, Defendant Lee ○○ completed each registration of ownership transfer on January 7, 2004 with respect to each of the instant lands, and on the same day, each of the shares in each of the instant lands was completed under Defendant Cho Jong-○’s name on the same day.

G. Meanwhile, on March 14, 2005, Defendant ○○ who lost the above lawsuit with Defendant ○○○○, revoked the permission for payment in kind of inheritance tax on each of the instant land, and accordingly, the Plaintiffs paid inheritance tax.

The facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1-4, Gap evidence 2, 9, 12, and 21-3, Gap evidence 3, 6, 7, 8, 13, 19-1-11, Gap evidence 5, 14, 16, 17, and 1-6, each of the evidence No. 4-1-5, Gap evidence No. 10, 15-1-7, Gap evidence No. 18-1-8, Gap evidence No. 20-1, 2, and 3-1, respectively, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. As seen in the above facts, registration of preservation of ownership of the previous land in the name of the deceased, the deceased, the deceased deceased, was revealed to have separate owners on September 8, 1972 when the registration of preservation of ownership of the previous land was completed or the ownership on September 8, 1982 when 10 years have passed since the expiration of registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the deceased, as long as the deceased ○ had continued to possess and manage the above previous land, which was conducted by the deceased ○ pursuant to the will of the deceased ○, the deceased ○, the deceased ○, and each of the above lands divided from the above old land, and it is reasonable to view that the deceased ○ has occupied the above old land in peace and openly and openly with the intent to own it. Thus, the acquisition by prescription of the register on September 8, 1972 when the registration of preservation of ownership was completed or the acquisition by prescription on September 8, 1982 when 10 years have passed.

B. Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the deceased ○○○, and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiffs as their successors with respect to each of the lands of this case is valid registration in accordance with the substantive relations. Nevertheless, as long as the defendant ○○ lost the registration of ownership transfer in the above lawsuit with the defendant ○○, and the plaintiffs separately paid inheritance tax by cancelling the registration of payment in kind of inheritance tax, the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the other defendants, which was based on the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant ○○ and the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the defendant ○○, will eventually result in the lack of causes. Therefore, the defendants are liable to implement the registration of ownership transfer in the above name of the defendants.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case against the defendants is reasonable and acceptable.