beta
Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. 1) The Plaintiffs were children of E and F, and Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff C were women. 2) The Plaintiffs were G, and G died on May 1, 1949. Meanwhile, the above E died on October 11, 1967 and the above F died on January 21, 2005.
B. The instant land was registered as G around August 17, 1946, but the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant land based on the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), which was in force on October 30, 1980, pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration of Ownership of Real Estate (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).
[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number), Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The land of this case owned by G was succeeded to F and the plaintiffs due to the death of E, and the F's share in the land of this case was inherited to the plaintiffs due to the death of F, and the plaintiffs own the land of this case according to the proportion of their respective shares (5/9 shares in plaintiffs A, 2/9 shares in plaintiffs B, and 2/9 shares in the plaintiffs C). However, since the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer of this case pursuant to the Act on Special Measures without any false letter of guarantee, etc., the registration of ownership transfer of this case must be cancelled as a registration of invalidation. 2) The defendant's assertion that the defendant purchased the land of this case from the plaintiffs on February 5, 1970, and completed the registration of ownership transfer of this case in accordance with the Act on Special Measures.
Even if the registration of transfer of ownership of this case was not legally registered, the defendant occupied the land of this case in peace and openly and openly with the intention to own it from around 1988.