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

A. The Plaintiffs are the heirs of the deceased deceased on March 10, 1974.

B. Each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant land”) is the land divided on June 16, 2006 from E in the size of 1954 square meters prior to Simju-si and divided on June 16, 2006. As to the instant land E, registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the Defendant’s future on February 24, 1978.

C. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter “instant land”) is the land divided between E and E from E in 725 to 1971 at the time of the strike, and the ownership transfer registration was completed on September 19, 197 on the ground of the land expropriation conducted on July 19, 197.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap 1 through 5 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) Although the land cadastre of the instant land No. 1 was written as the owner, the Defendant completed registration of ownership preservation without any cause. 2) On July 19, 1979, the ownership transfer registration was completed on the ground that the instant land No. 2 was expropriated by the Presidential Decree on Special Measures for Expropriation and Use of Land in the Area Subject to Mobilization (Presidential Decree No. 5912, hereinafter “the Presidential Decree of this case”) under Article 5(4) of the Act on Special Measures for National Security on July 19, 1979, but the network D was registered as the former owner at the time, and there was no fact that the successors, including the Plaintiffs, were paid compensation for the expropriation of the land.

In addition, since the Presidential Decree of this case was rendered a decision of unconstitutionality in the Constitutional Court Case No. 92HunGa18, the registration of transfer of ownership is invalid.

B. 1) In order to seek the cancellation of the registration of ownership preservation, which was completed in the name of the defendant against the defendant, the plaintiff must be actively asserted and proved that the plaintiff had the title to claim the cancellation of the registration. If it is not recognized that the plaintiff has such title, it shall be the name of the defendant.