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

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

1. The Plaintiffs’ lawsuit against the said Defendants is unlawful in light of the final and conclusive settlement recommendation of the revocation of the registration of transfer of ownership (No. 19619) in the instant court’s decision on this safety defense.

First, among the above previous suit, which can be seen by considering the purport of entry and pleading in Eul-B and Eul-B, the claim against the defendant K non-real estate trust is sought for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the termination of the trust contract with respect to the share of 7,050/7,166 out of the land of this case, and thus, it cannot be said that the subject matter of the claim of this case seeking the implementation of the cancellation registration procedure has different effect of res judicata

Next, the subject matter of the claim for cancellation registration is the claim for cancellation registration in question, that is, the cause of the claim, which is the basis of its identity, is the cause of the claim for cancellation registration in question. In other words, the cause of the claim for cancellation registration in question is the invalidation of the cause of registration in question, and each individual cause supporting the invalidation of the cause of registration is merely an independent means of attack and defense, and thus cannot be deemed to constitute a separate cause of claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da54024, Sept. 17, 1999). However, the subject matter of the lawsuit between the plaintiffs and the defendant Leenn Entertainment, which is the cause of the claim for cancellation of the sales contract as to the land in this case and the cause of the claim in this case, which is the basis of its identity. Although the claims and obligations arising from the sales contract are retroactively extinguished at the time of cancellation of the sales contract, it cannot be deemed that there is no difference in legal nature of attack and defense at all.

Therefore, the above principal safety of the defendant Lee Nekn Entertainment and the K non-real estate trust.