1. Of the instant lawsuit, the registration of ownership transfer regarding the land specified in the attached Table 1 of the real estate list as against the defendant's Order-gun.

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of part of the instant lawsuit

A. Ex officio, among the instant lawsuit, the part demanding the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration with respect to the land listed in attached Table 1 (hereinafter “the land listed in attached Table 1”) on the land listed in attached Table 1 on the real estate list against the defendant Y-gun among the instant lawsuit, and the part demanding the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration and merger registration with respect to the land listed in attached Table 9 against the defendant G, H, I, J, K, K, and L, and the part demanding the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration with respect to the land listed in the deceased AG name on the land listed in attached Table 9 against the defendant Y-gun, the part demanding the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration with respect to the land listed in the title transfer registration with respect to the defendant AC, AD, and AE, and the part demanding the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration with respect to the land listed in the attached Table 16 on the defendant Y-do, and the part demanding the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration with respect to the land of this case against the defendant Y-do.

In a lawsuit seeking ownership transfer registration or cancellation of the portion corresponding to the former parcel number which ceased to exist as a result of a merger among the combined lands, if the object of the claim was specified only as the former parcel number and the cadastral point before the merger without using a measurement drawing capable of subdividing it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da42017, Sept. 10, 2009; 97Da2993, Jun. 24, 1997). In addition, if the object of the claim was specified as the former parcel number and the cadastral point before the merger, such a claim cannot be deemed to have been specified in detail as the object of the claim was not specified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2009Da42017, Sept. 10, 2009; 97Da2993, Jun. 24, 197). As such, the part of the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration concerning each real estate in this case is unlawful

B. Next, among the instant lawsuits, Defendant B, N,O, P, Q, T, U,V, W, X,Y, and Z.