1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be incidental to participation.

1. Basic facts

A. The real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “instant real estate”) was completed on June 28, 1960 on the ground of sale and purchase on June 24, 1960.

B. On February 24, 2016, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 2, 1998 in the Defendants’ future on May 2, 1998. On the same day, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on April 4, 2003 in the case of the Defendants’ Intervenor’ Intervenor.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and the judgment of the plaintiff asserted that the real estate of this case purchased through consultation with the network H on December 31, 1969 on the land incorporated into the Gyeong Highway, and held the land in peace and public performance with the intention to own it from July 7, 1970, which is the unit unification of the Gyeong Highway. Thus, the defendants, the heir of the DoH, are obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership due to sale on December 31, 1969 according to their respective inheritance shares listed in the attached Table 2, and the defendants, the deceased H's heir, are obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of transfer of ownership due to the completion of the acquisition by prescription on July 7, 190 according to their respective inheritance shares listed in the attached Table 2.

On February 24, 2016, the fact that the instant real estate had been completed on the grounds of sale on April 4, 2003 in the future of the Defendants’ Intervenor’s Intervenor’s supplementary intervenor on February 24, 2016 is as seen earlier, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot file a claim for the registration of ownership transfer concerning the instant real estate with the Defendants.

As to this, the Plaintiff conspired with the Defendants and the Defendants’ Intervenor, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Defendants’ Intervenor is null and void. It is unlawful for the Defendants to transfer to the Defendants’ Intervenor with knowledge that the prescriptive acquisition of the instant real estate has been completed.