소유권이전등기말소등
1. All of the plaintiffs' primary and conjunctive claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. Basic facts
A. The relationship 1) The parties to the dispute between J and K, South-Nam L, Samnam M, the plaintiff B (N prior to the opening of the names), the plaintiff A, and women'sO on July 21, 1976, and the J died on June 7, 199. The K died on June 7, 199. 2) the defendant FF, the defendant G, the defendant D, the defendant D, and the defendant D, and the defendant D were deceased on October 25, 2003, and the defendant C married with the defendant F on May 21, 1987.
B. 1) The I owned each of the instant lands. However, K owned each of the instant lands, which was in force on April 23, 1981 by the Ulsan District Court No. 28208, Apr. 23, 1981, and was in force on April 23, 1981, the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (No. 3094, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).
(2) After completing the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on May 25, 1970, Defendant D and C completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the gift on December 6, 1991, with the Ulsan District Court No. 2288, Dec. 10, 1991.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. Each of the instant lands, which is the primary cause of Plaintiff 1, was owned by J and his children, including the Plaintiffs, due to his death. On April 23, 1981, K attached a false guarantee stating that each of the instant lands was purchased from I at the time of applying for the registration of ownership transfer under the Act on Special Measures for the Prevention of Change in Rights, which was enforced at the time of the enforcement of each of the instant lands. As such, the said registration of ownership transfer is null and void on the basis of a letter of guarantee or confirmation that the entry of the cause of the alteration in rights is inconsistent with the truth, and thus, the said registration of ownership transfer is also null and void.
Therefore, each of the instant cases as I’s children.