소유권보존등기 말소청구
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
Purport of claim and appeal
1.
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the "Plaintiff A" in the judgment of the court of first instance as "the deceased", and the fourth and sixth acts following the fourth and sixth acts, adding "The deceased on June 25, 2016 while the lawsuit of first instance was pending, and the plaintiff AB, the plaintiff AC, AD, and AE taken over the lawsuit of this case, who is the inheritor, and the plaintiff AB, the plaintiff AC, AD, and AE taken over the lawsuit of this case." After the nineth acts, the plaintiff asserts that "if the document was prepared by the prop farmland confirmation sight and the compensation ledger with respect to any land, the plaintiff can be inferred that the aforementioned application for compensation was submitted."
The schedule for confirmation of land price of each prop shall be determined as temporary measures that have a gap in the prop compensation work due to the fact of the related documents during the six thousand twenty-five incident (No. 48, Nov. 15, 1950), "Case concerning the Guidelines for Application for Compensation" (No. 243, Apr. 28, 1951), "Case concerning the Issuance of Land Price Securities" (No. 627, Mar. 29, 1952), "Case concerning the Issuance of Land Price Securities" (No. 627, Mar. 29, 1952). The "Documents prepared by the head of Si/Eup/Myeon having jurisdiction over the location of land by dividing the prop by Do, by gender, and submitted three times again to the Do governor (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da5666, Oct. 10, 203).
On the other hand, the government, as a temporary measure for the issuance of land-to-be securities in a simple manner to ensure that the affairs related to compensation are not performed due to the outbreak of the Korean War, as well as the lack of administrative capacity compared to the land subject to serious damage, has made it possible to submit a report instead of an application for compensation and prepare a compensation register based on the prop report (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da3999, Jun. 14, 2013), and the compensation register was prepared (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da3999, Jun. 14, 2013).
Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the application for compensation was submitted earlier.
[The register of compensation submitted by the plaintiff (Evidence A No. 11)]