1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be admitted in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence of 1 to 15 (including each number, if any) without dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings:

With respect to 600/801 shares among Kimcheon-Icheon-si 801 square meters (2648 square meters; hereinafter "the instant land"), the ownership transfer registration has been completed in the J on February 9, 1965 on the ground that "the sale made on March 10, 1957" was "the sale made on March 10, 195." As to the shares of 201/801 of the instant land, the ownership transfer registration has been completed in the K on the same day on the same day. As for the shares of 201/801 of the instant land, the ownership transfer registration was completed on July 18, 2017 due to the inheritance by a division made on September 15, 1995.

B. The address of J is written in the entire certificate of the registered matters concerning the instant land as “Yung-gun M,” and K’s address is written as “Yung-gun N.”

C. The Plaintiffs’ prior-partyO established the permanent domicile in Gincheon-si P, but died on October 29, 1983, and his spouse Q Q on March 12, 2017, and on February 1, 2017, the Republic of Korea R died on August 5, 1984, and the Plaintiff F, the spouse of the Plaintiff F, the Plaintiff F, the Plaintiff, and H, the Plaintiff’s children, and H inherited the shares in inheritance in the attached list.

The Plaintiffs jointly used the name of “J” and completed the registration using the name of “J” at the time of completing the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the portion of 600/801 of the instant land, and filed an application for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said land on or around June 7, 2017.

However, the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch rejected the plaintiffs' application for registration on the grounds that the name and address of the registered titleholder and the deceased are inconsistent.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The plaintiffs alleged that the registered titleholder J of 600/801 of the land of this case is the same person among the networkO and the land of this case, and against the State, 600/801 of the land of this case.