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

A. On July 1, 1932, the networkF completed the transfer of ownership on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) on July 1, 193, in the forest land register.

B. The deceased on July 23, 1954, and the deceased on July 23, 1954, and the deceased on the part of the deceased F and the deceased on the part of the heir of Australia succeeded to the property of this case, such as the land.

C. The deceased on September 20, 1960 died. The heir was the deceased on September 20, 196 He, the plaintiffs, the network I, and the J. The inheritance shares were 3/8 of the deceased and 1/8 of the plaintiffs and the network I respectively, and 2/8 of the J.

The deceased H (hereinafter “the deceased”) completed the registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter “registration of preservation of ownership”) in accordance with Law No. 3562, May 7, 1985, No. 5939, which was received on May 7, 1985 (hereinafter “instant Special Measures”).

(E) At the time of the registration of initial ownership, the registered titleholder was entered into K, and thereafter, the registration titleholder was changed to H on the ground of error in the application.

The deceased died on June 14, 1994, and the inheritor is the Defendants. The inheritance shares are 3/7 of the Defendant D, who is the spouse of the deceased, and 2/7 of the Defendant C and E, who are the children of the deceased.

F. As to the instant land, Defendant C completed the registration of ownership transfer based on inheritance by consultation and division as from No. 34617, Nov. 15, 1994, which was received on November 15, 1994.

G. Defendant D completed the registration of ownership transfer on June 26, 2013, which was received on June 26, 2013, by 33352, as to the instant land, on the ground of donation.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The lawsuit of this case filed by the Defendants prior to the merits constitutes a claim for recovery of inheritance under Article 999 of the Civil Act. Since it is obvious that the lawsuit of this case was filed three years after the date on which the facts of infringement were known, it shall be dismissed as unlawful.