A. The purport of the claim asserted by the Plaintiffs is that they were the successors of E, who were the owners of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”). Since they did not donate each of the instant real estate on December 26, 1956 (Short-term 4289) to Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”), the registration of transfer of ownership in the Disposition C, which was completed in the future of Defendant C due to the said donation, is null and void.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs seek the cancellation of the above transfer of ownership registration against Defendant C.

(Specifically, as shown in the annex). (b)

Judgment on Confession of Applicable Provisions of Law (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. As to Defendant D

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the transfer registration of ownership that was completed to Defendant C is null and void, and that the transfer registration of ownership in Defendant D, which was completed based on the registration of the invalid defendant C, is also null and void.

B. In a case where a registration has been made in view of the legal principles, barring any special circumstance, it is presumed that the registration was made lawfully in the cause and procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da72029, Feb. 5, 2002). Therefore, it is presumed that the registration of Defendant D, which was completed with respect to each of the instant real estate, was completed lawfully, and that the said registration is null and void, must be proven by the Plaintiffs.

However, the circumstance or evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone does not necessarily mean that E donated each of the instant real estate to Defendant C.

Since it is not clearly revealed that the registration of transfer of ownership completed in the future of Defendant C, C, and D is invalid, it is difficult to recognize that the registration of transfer of ownership completed in the future of Defendant C, or Defendant D is invalid by following the presumption of registration recognized in the above legal doctrine.

In addition, the evidence No. 1-3 and No. 2-3 of the evidence No. 1-3 are all the arguments.