1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and this case is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning of the court's explanation is the same as that of the court's decision of the first instance except for the addition or replacement as follows.

[Supplementary Parts] Following the 6th sentence of the first instance court, the following details shall be added to the 11th sentence:

C. As seen earlier, the presumption power of registration of preservation of ownership or transfer of ownership in the name of the deceased M, which was completed in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Development of Real Estate in this case, is maintained. As such, each of the above real estate is owned by the Defendants, the heir of the deceased M, and otherwise, it cannot be deemed that the deceased M was entrusted with the title of each of the above real estate from the deceased T. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim for registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of termination

[On the other hand, according to Articles 11, 12(1) and 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder's Name, a title truster, who had any real right to real estate registered under a title trust agreement prior to the enforcement of the same Act, in the name of the title trustee, shall make the actual name registration within the grace period stipulated under Article 11 of the same Act, and since any title trust agreement and any change in the real right to real estate made pursuant to the registration made pursuant to the title trust agreement becomes null and void after the expiration of the grace period, the title truster cannot file a request for the registration of ownership transfer due to the cancellation of the title trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da5140, Jun. 14, 2007). Accordingly, even if there was a title trust agreement as alleged by the Plaintiffs on each of the real estate in this case between the network T and net M, the said title trust agreement becomes null and void after the grace period stipulated under the same Act