1. The plaintiffs' primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. On September 21, 1987, H road 162 square meters prior to the annexation (hereinafter “H land prior to the annexation”) was combined with G road 450 square meters prior to the annexation and became the land prior to the instant annexation. The land prior to the instant annexation was combined with the FF land prior to the annexation on June 5, 1995, and became the 6,981 square meters prior to the annexation.

B. On the other hand, registration of preservation of ownership (hereinafter “registration of preservation of ownership”) was completed in the future of the Defendant, respectively, as the name registry office of the Suwon District Court was received on March 10, 1987 with respect to G and H land, respectively.

C. The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da120049 against the Seoul Central District Court, asserting that “The land prior to the merger of this case was acquired by acquiring ownership under the circumstances of I, and the Plaintiffs, as co-inheritors of J, jointly inherited the land prior to the merger of this case.” The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking the implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of the registration of preservation of ownership of this case and the confirmation of the ownership of the land prior to the merger of this case (the co-inheritors’s share is the same as the entry of the primary

On July 12, 2016, the above court rendered a judgment dismissing all of the plaintiffs' above claims on the grounds that it is difficult for J, the conciliation division of the plaintiffs, to recognize it as the same person as I, the assessment titleholder of the land before the merger of this case.

The plaintiffs' appeal against this is dismissed on December 6, 2017 (Seoul Central District Court 2016Na47354), and the plaintiffs' appeal was dismissed on March 29, 2018 (Supreme Court 2018Da201078), and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

(hereinafter referred to as “a final and conclusive judgment”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5 (including numbers, if any) and the purport of the entire pleadings, I, the title holder of the land before the merger of this case, as the plaintiffs’ conciliation division, jointly inherited the land before the merger of this case.