1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. As to the land of Gyeonggi-gun C forest 676 square meters (the land before the division below), the plaintiffs' prior owner D completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the sale around April 28, 1947, and the defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the purchase on March 10, 1969, No. 2569, which was received on March 10, 1969, which was received on June 21, 1949, respectively.

B. After that, the land before the instant partition was divided into C forest land and E on February 14, 1976 after the land category was changed to the previous one, and thereafter, the said land was replaced by G field 1,770 square meters by the F business that was implemented by the Pyeongtaek Farmland Improvement Association.

C. On May 30, 2002, the above G field 1,770 square meters was divided into each real estate listed in the separate sheet (as follows, each real estate of this case).

D As of March 10, 1970, after the death of the wife, I and J jointly inherited the property of the wife H and her children. H died on December 8, 1975 and jointly succeeded to the property by I and J. I on May 14, 1995, and I jointly succeeded to the property of the wife K, K, children, L, M, P, Q, Q, and R, and the heir's share in inheritance is as shown in the attached Form.

E. Of the above inheritors, R was against the Defendant, who filed a claim against the Defendant for the cancellation of the registration of ownership transfer regarding each of the instant real estate in the name of the Defendant (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Da166341, 2012Na31160, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da205563).

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 7, 13 through 26, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the land before the division of this case was purchased from D, the plaintiffs, who purchased the land before the division of this case from D, which was not self-sufficient by the defendant pursuant to Article 2 (1) of the Addenda to the Farmland Act (No. 4817 of Dec. 22, 1994).