소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion summary is a land owned by AE (Death on November 25, 1983, A10-3), AF (Death on February 27, 200), B (Death on March 6, 2014), and A owned by the Plaintiff at one-fourth of each of 1/4. The land owned by the Plaintiff is a land owned by the Defendant. The land owned by AC prior to AC in Gunsan City (hereinafter “2 land”).
At the end of March, 190, the Plaintiffs and the Defendant concluded an exchange contract with the content that the part A of the attached Form No. 250 of the land of this case and the part B of the attached Form No. 2 of the land of this case shall be exchanged in installments, respectively, among the land of this case No. 1.
On October 14, 2013, the Korea Rail Network Authority acquired 1542 square meters of the instant land as a railroad site, and paid 32,844,600 won to the Defendant under the name of land compensation, etc.
Plaintiff
3.OF is the heir of the network AF, and the plaintiff 11. to 19. succeeded to the status as the successor of the network AE.
The defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the land in the attached Form (b) and (d) according to the exchange contract with the plaintiffs. Since the obligation for the registration of ownership transfer for the part of land is impossible to be fulfilled, the defendant is entitled to recover the compensation received from the Korea Rail Network Authority due to compensatory compensation or the claim for the subject.
2. However, the plaintiffs did not specify one of the parties to the exchange contract, and they merely claim that they are the plaintiffs, and there is no disposition document stating the elements of the exchange contract.
In addition, each description of evidence Nos. 6, 12 and witness AH’s testimony to the effect that an exchange contract has been concluded between the network AE, network AF, network B, Plaintiff and Defendant (or Defendant’s mother) is difficult to believe, and there is no other sufficient evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the claim of this case, based on the premise that the exchange contract was concluded between the plaintiffs (or their preference) and the defendant as alleged, is without merit.
3. The plaintiffs' claims are justified.