1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The land survey division prepared during the Japanese occupation period is indicated as the land survey division in which F in the G of the Nanju-gun, the G of the Nanju-gun, 95 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

B. Since the instant land was merged with H 53 square meters in Female-gun, the land of this case was located in the area of 489 square meters (hereinafter “the land after the instant merger”), and the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership as to the land after the instant merger on April 8, 1996.

C. Meanwhile, upon the death of Nonparty D on April 25, 1965, Plaintiff B and I succeeded to D, and thereafter Plaintiff A et al. succeeded to I due to the death of Plaintiff I.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 to 4, 9 through 14 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The J, the first aider of the plaintiffs' assertion, acquired the ownership of the instant land under the circumstances of the land, and as he died on November 10, 1925, and as his wife died around 1936, D, the first aider of the plaintiffs, was solely inherited the property of the J husband and wife between J and K.

After that, upon the death of D, the term "name" in the attached Table, including the plaintiffs, was inherited by the persons mentioned in the same Table in proportion to the stated "share in possession" of the same Table and became the owner.

Although the Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership on the instant land, since it is a registration of invalidation without any cause, the Plaintiffs seek to cancel the registration of invalidation, and further seek to confirm that the persons recorded in the column of “name” in the annexed sheet of the status of shares held are jointly owning the instant land in proportion to the shares held.

B. We examine whether the judgment is the same person as J and the land investigation injury of the land of this case, which the plaintiffs asserted as their shipbuilding.

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 7 and 10, D, the representative of the plaintiffs, shall be in accordance with the evidence of the whole purport of the arguments, and D, which is the representative of the plaintiffs, shall be in accordance with the evidence of the family register of the female-gun of Gyeonggi-do.