1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

A. On August 15, 1913, P grave No. 286 was assessed against the deceased M on the ground that the P grave site No. 286 was located before the subdivision.

On December 13, 1970, the above land was divided into the instant land 1, 2 and Q grave site 169 square meters (hereinafter “instant cemetery”). On November 27, 1973, the land category of the instant land 1 and 2 was changed from the grave site to the site.

B. On December 4, 1973, the network R completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale, and the network S completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale, respectively, on the land of this case on December 4, 1973.

After December 15, 1973, the network R and the network S entered into a contract for the exchange of land 1 and 2. Accordingly, the network R completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the land of this case on December 19, 1973, and the network S completed the registration of ownership transfer concerning the land of this case on December 19, 1973.

C. After the death of the network R, Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer on the land of this case on April 10, 200 due to inheritance by consultation and division.

The deceased on June 27, 1987, and the heir of the deceased on June 27, 1987, there is the defendant D, E, F, G, H, H, I, K, and L, the wife of the defendant C, his child.

E. Meanwhile, after the deceased M died on August 16, 1953, in accordance with the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate, T, the head of the deceased M on November 22, 1984, and U.S., the representative of the plaintiff at the time, completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation. The plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of donation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8 (including provisional number) and the purport of the whole pleadings are asserted by the plaintiff, and the registration of net R on land Nos. 1, 2, and net S's transfer of ownership is null and void by a sales contract for invalidation of causes for the transfer of ownership. Since the exchange contract based on it is also null and void, registration in the name of the defendants is a registration of invalidation to be cancelled.

Therefore, the plaintiff is based on the termination of title trust with respect to net M.