소유권말소등기 등
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) and (b)(2) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the part other than the conclusion among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance, and therefore, (b) of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
[Judgment of the court below] 2. The plaintiff's assertion and its judgment
A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the defendant could have sufficiently consulted with the plaintiffs, F, and inherited property, who are other co-inheritors of the network E at the time of performing the registration of each transfer of ownership under the Act on Special Measures, and that the plaintiffs or the networkF did not sell each of the real estate of this case to the defendant after the death of the network E, and the defendant was donated the land of this case from the network E, and that the sale date stated in the grounds for the registration of each transfer of ownership of this case was after the date of the network E as of January 1, 1980, it is obvious that the guarantee under the Act on Special Measures, which is the basis of each transfer of ownership of this case, is fraudulent, and therefore, the remainder of each transfer of ownership of this case except the defendants' shares in inheritance, constitutes grounds for invalidation.
As seen above, as the registration of ownership transfer of this case was made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures, it is presumed that the above presumption is consistent with the substantive legal relationship. As such, it cannot be deemed that the presumption of ownership transfer registration of this case, which was made pursuant to the Act on Special Measures, has been reversed solely on the ground that the circumstance that the testimony by the witness G, the testimony by the first instance court, and the trading date stated as the grounds for registration for each transfer registration of this case, is after the date of the deceased E’s death, and that the actual reason for acquisition is not a transaction specified as the grounds for registration, but a gift, and that the mere fact that the reason for registration