1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. Before dividing the instant land area into 105,038 square meters, the instant land area was 163,636 square meters and was divided into 78,780 square meters on September 9, 2016, and the area was reduced.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant land”) on November 15, 1974, the registration of ownership transfer was made on the ground of sale in seven names, including E, J, K, etc.

E around May 30, 1986, completed the registration of ownership transfer for the above 1/7 shares in J's name due to sale, and completed the registration of ownership transfer for the reasons of sale from the heir of the above K on July 31, 1986.

Accordingly, E shares in the instant real estate became 3/7.

B. On November 16, 201, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer for the three-seven shares out of the instant land from E on the ground of sale (hereinafter “instant registration of ownership transfer”).

C. On March 20, 2017, the registration of ownership transfer based on the partition of co-owned property was completed in the name of four persons, such as F, etc. as to the above three-seven shares of the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole argument

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

A. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case seeking cancellation of ownership transfer registration against the defendant is unlawful, since ownership as to the land of this case was lost as a result of partition of co-owned property.

Since each claim for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration made in succession is common co-litigations, one of them can seek cancellation against only one of them (Supreme Court Decision 98Da23393, Sept. 22, 1998). Even if the registration of ownership transfer has already been completed from the Defendant to 4, such as the above F, etc., as the basic facts, it cannot be deemed unlawful to seek against the Defendant, who is the intermediate title holder, for the implementation of the procedure for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration of this case.

Therefore, it is true.