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

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

1. Basic facts

A. The status of the Party 1) The Network K is as follows: (a) the network M, the network N (Death on June 17, 1994) between the network L and L, and P (the name of Q, Q, and the name of P; hereinafter referred to as “P”).

B) 2) N centered on N, the Plaintiff’s children are wife, Plaintiff B, C, D, and N’s inheritance shares in N’s inherited property are 3/11, Plaintiff B, C, D, and C, respectively.

3) centering on P’s net F (Death March 27, 2015), Defendant G is wife, Defendant H and I are their respective children. B. 2,602 square meters prior to Jinju-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

(1) M completed the registration of ownership preservation on February 18, 1965, and P completed the registration of ownership transfer under the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer (No. 3094, Dec. 31, 197) on October 7, 1970.

2) F has completed the registration of transfer of ownership by the Changwon District Court Branch of Seoul District Court on January 14, 1987 due to sale and purchase on January 14, 1987 as the receipt No. 947 of the receipt on January 14, 1987. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 3 (if there is a provisional number, each entry including each number, and the purport of the whole

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. 1) With respect to the plaintiffs' claim for ownership transfer registration under the agreement, F and P agreed to N on February 8, 1980 between N and N to complete the ownership transfer registration of the land in the dispute of this case, and the defendants, F's heir, are obligated to implement the ownership transfer registration procedure under the agreement to the plaintiffs, N' heir, who are N's heir, on the land in the dispute of this case. 2) The Gap evidence No. 1 cannot be used as evidence because the authenticity cannot be acknowledged, and F is denied as to F's name's subsequent seal, whereas the plaintiffs did not prove their authenticity.