1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are all dismissed.

3. The total cost of the lawsuit.

1. Basic facts

A. The former land cadastre on 834 square meters before the F of the Gyeonggi Yang-gun Group, indicated that E, who had an address in the Gyeonggi Yang-gun D, was determined on October 1, 1913, and thereafter had an ownership of the said land transferred to E, who had an address in N.

B. On December 26, 1995, the Defendant completed the registration of initial ownership on the above land (No. 74047) and was divided into each land listed in the “Attachment List of Real Estate” (hereinafter “instant land”) on December 17, 2014.

C. The instant land is a bank site located immediately adjacent to the water route of the “P”, which is the site of the Han River, and has a longer shape.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 3 through 5 (including paper numbers), Eul's 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The parties' assertion;

A. E, the original acquisition of ownership based on the circumstances of the instant land asserted by the Plaintiffs, is the Plaintiffs, and the Plaintiffs received each of the shares in the attached inheritance share sheet among the instant land from E.

However, without any title, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation on the instant land in its future without title, and since the registration of invalidity of cause, the Plaintiffs, the owners of some shares of the instant land, seek against the Defendant for the cancellation of registration of ownership preservation on the relevant shares.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) lack of evidence that E is the same person as the Plaintiff’s Dober land, and even if so, it is highly likely that the ownership of the instant land was nationalized after transferring it from E to Japan, and the instant land constitutes a river area or river appurtenances under the former River Act, and thus, it is highly likely that the Defendant had lawfully acquired its ownership through the compensation procedure.

3. The defendant.