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

A. 1) At the end of the 1950s, the Defendant church owned by Nonparty E at the time of the late 1950s (hereinafter “instant real estate”). The Defendant church is 458 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

(2) Plaintiff A was established on the ground and is located on the ground of this case until the date of the closing of argument in this case, and Plaintiff B and Nonparty F are the grandchildren of Plaintiff B and Nonparty F, and Plaintiff A’s children.

B. 1) On August 29, 1981, the change in the ownership transfer registration of the instant real estate was completed on August 29, 1981 with respect to the instant real estate. 2) On May 7, 2009, the Plaintiff A and Nonparty F made a partial transfer registration of ownership on April 29, 2009 with respect to each of the instant real estate shares of 150/458 shares, respectively, from the Daegu District Court’s receipt of the registration office, the donation on April 29, 2009, as the ground for registration.

3) As of August 22, 2014, Plaintiff B filed for the entire share transfer registration with respect to the portion of 150/458, which was settled in F in the instant real estate on August 22, 2014, under the 10237 receipt by the registration office of Yecheon District Court, the Daegu District Court received the donation as the cause of registration. (4) Accordingly, as of the date of closing argument of the instant case, the registration of each share ownership was completed for each of the Plaintiffs’ share of 150/458, which is the remainder in the Defendant church in the future.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence No. 5, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiffs, as co-owners of the instant real estate, seek to divide the instant real estate as stated in the purport of the claim.

In this regard, the defendant church did not adopt a legitimate general assembly resolution on the disposal of the property, and therefore the registration in the name of the plaintiff B based on the registration in the name of the plaintiff A and the registration in the name of the non-party F is null and void.