1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiffs and H are children of the network I who were the original owners of the real estate of this case, and the defendants C and D are children of H.

B. I died in around 1991, and the Plaintiffs completed the registration of ownership transfer due to inheritance by agreement division with respect to one-half of the instant real estate, which still remains in the name of I on August 7, 2001.

C. On the same day, Plaintiff A completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to shares of 1/4 of the instant real estate to Defendant C and D, and Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer with respect to shares of 1/4 of the instant real estate to Defendant C and D on the same day.

On June 26, 2006, the Plaintiffs completed the provisional disposition registration on the 28th day of the same month, upon receiving the provisional disposition order prohibiting the disposal of the instant real property from the court as the preserved right by taking the right to claim the removal of interference based on ownership as the preserved right.

E. On November 2, 2013, Defendant C and D entered into a sales contract with Defendant E for KRW 2675 million for the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer with Defendant E for the instant real estate on December 12, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion made a title trust of the instant real estate to Defendant C and D, and the instant real estate was substantially managed by managing the prior cemetery even after the title trust.

Since the title trust agreement and any other change in real rights are null and void in accordance with the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the Plaintiff seeks cancellation of the ownership transfer registration as a claim for exclusion of interference based on ownership by Defendant C and D.

In addition, since the ownership transfer registration of Defendant C and D against Defendant E is contrary to the validity of the provisional disposition executed on the instant real estate, it cannot be asserted against the Plaintiffs. Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer of Defendant E should also be cancelled.

2.