소유권이전등기
1. The plaintiffs' appeal is 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 key issue of this case is whether the title holder of each real estate listed in the annexed real estate list is the same as the plaintiffs' preference. The reasons for appeal by the plaintiffs are not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court, and it does not seem that the court of first instance erred in its findings of fact and judgment even after closely examining all the evidence submitted in the first instance court and the first instance court.
2. According to the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where part of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as follows. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence
The third 12 pages of the judgment of the first instance shall be followed as follows.
In the fourth 2nd 2nd 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 1st 201, 201, 201, 201., 202nd 2nd 1st 2nd 1st 1st 1st 201, 200, 200, 200,00th 1st 1st
The court of first instance shall have "this court" over 10 to 11 of the judgment of the court of first instance.
In the fourth 17th 17th 17th 17th 17th 17th 21th 21th 3th 200.
As to whether the address of Ma, a well-known in the sports group, was divided into Yuri-gun of Gyeonggi-do due to the reorganization of the administrative district, and whether P, which is assumed at the address of the plaintiffs K prior to the reorganization of the administrative district, was included in the sports group's Yuri-gun of Gyeonggi-do, there is not sufficient evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da2388, Jun. 9, 2011). The following is added to the fourth 21th following the decision of the first instance court of the first instance.
In addition, the plaintiffs are the situation of this case by K, the fleet.