A. Each of the sperm and the Defendant shall be D and E’s children, including the Plaintiff (the designated parties, hereinafter referred to as the Plaintiff).

B. D’s death on April 13, 1980, and his spouse, E and the Defendant, as his spouse, succeeded to D’s property according to the statutory share of inheritance (spouse E, Defendant 6/37, Defendant 6/37, Defendant 6/37, Defendant 1/37, Defendant 1/37, Nonparty G, Ha, H, I, J, K, and 4/37, respectively). On July 3, 2001, E died on July 3, 200, and the Defendant succeeded to E’s property according to the statutory share of inheritance (each 1/8).

(c)

On February 5, 1988, the registration of the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant (hereinafter “registration of the transfer of ownership”) was completed on April 13, 1980 with respect to the land of 10,612 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in the Nam-gun, the Nam-gun, the Republic of Korea, which was owned by Han Part D, for the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant (hereinafter “registration of the transfer of ownership”), and the said land is being used as the mother line for sperm such as the plaintiff and the defendant’s graves, etc.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 13 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the party’s assertion 1) After the Plaintiff D’s death, the inheritors jointly own the pertinent land, taking into account the fact that the instant land was located in advance. However, for convenience, the Defendant, a South-North Korea, who takes charge of the removal of the ownership only, decided to jointly own the said land, and accordingly, the ownership of the instant land became extinct as seen earlier.

Therefore, the above nominal trust agreement is null and void in violation of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name. Therefore, the registration of the transfer of ownership of this case is also the registration of invalidity of cause.

Therefore, the land of this case is inherited by the Plaintiff et al. and the Defendant according to the statutory inheritance shares in succession following the death of D and E, so the Defendant et al. of the above land is each of the above land for the Plaintiff et al.