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

A. On May 24, 1968, the register of the instant land is indicated as follows: (a) J with the domicile in H, (b) I with H’s domicile, and (c) I with the Plaintiffs’ decedent A’s deceased deceased will complete the registration of ownership transfer as a partner.

B. The deceased registered titleholder J and the deceased on September 10, 190 (O born and died on September 10, 199; the legal domicile of the deceased is L; hereinafter “the deceasedJ”); the above registered titleholder I and the deceased on September 25, 2004 (P born and died on September 25, 2004; hereinafter “the legal domicile of the deceased”) filed an application for registration of change with the deceased owner of the instant land as the deceased on April 10, 2015, with the Sejong District Court Sejong District Court Sejong (Seoul District Court Decision 25628, receipt of April 10, 2015; hereinafter “the deceasedI”) and filed an application for registration of change with the deceased owner of the instant land as the deceased on the ground of the death of the deceased.

C. On April 23, 2015, the Daejeon District Court: (a) rendered a decision that “The indication (the address of the networkJ) of the person liable for registration recorded in the application information does not coincide with the registration record; (b) the above application for registration is dismissed pursuant to Article 29 subparag. 7 of the Registration of Real Estate Act; and (c) the case of application for registration of change under Article 25679 of the same day is dismissed, and there is no subject to registration; (d) as the case of application for registration of change under Article 25679 of the Registration of Real Estate Act (No. 25628), the above application for registration is dismissed.”

Therefore, the deceased A filed an objection against the disposition of the above registrar under the Daejeon District Court 2015Kadan21, but the above court dismissed the objection on September 24, 2015 as the above registrar’s each disposition is reasonable.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 10 and 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs asserted that I, J, A is the same as the deceased, the deceased, and the deceased, and the deceased.