1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Plaintiff A’s assertion is F’s wife, and the rest of Plaintiffs are F’ children.

Land was assessed when H, who was the wife of F’s Cho G, was in the Japanese colonial rule.

After the death of H, the second third wife succeeded to the property.

The plaintiffs are successors who were succeeded in succession from I to J and F in succession.

I, in 1919 and 1920, due to her husband and her husband's death in 1920, she was placed in the old-age situation near the incompetent who has no capacity to act.

In such a situation, K, L, 1921, and 1924 were demoted and completed the registration of ownership transfer after completing the registration of ownership transfer.

Ultimately, the registration of ownership transfer is null and void as to the land indicated in the separate sheet, and even if the Defendant performed the compartmentalization and rearrangement project around 1981 and the parcel number of the land indicated in the separate sheet has ceased to exist, the land corresponding to that lot number exists. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration for the land indicated in the separate sheet to the Plaintiff as to each inheritance share.

Preliminary, if it is impossible to carry out the procedure for ownership transfer registration of the land listed in the separate sheet, it is obligated to carry out the procedure for ownership transfer registration with substitute soil equivalent thereto.

2. The purport of the claim in a civil lawsuit regarding the legality of the lawsuit ought to be clearly identified so that the content and scope can be clearly identified, and the determination of the purport of the claim is an ex officio examination. Thus, where the purport of the claim is not specified, the court shall ex officio order the correction and dismiss the lawsuit if the order of correction is not complied with.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da11459, Mar. 13, 2014). First, examining the part of the main claim in the instant lawsuit, insofar as there is no evidence that the Defendant’s land readjustment project conducted around 1981, which was void as a matter of course, is considered invalid.