1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order for implementation shall be revoked.

1. Grounds for the court's explanation concerning this part of the facts are set forth in the fourth ground for the judgment of the court of first instance.

On October 2, 2015, “The above AA road of 2281 square meters and X road of 56 square meters were combined with AL road of 3453 square meters.” On the end of the paragraph, the part of the paragraph is referred to as “The head of Dong AC (the inheritance rate of 1.5 square meters) inherited Australia, and the part in the paragraph of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act was jointly inherited A (the inheritance rate of 0.25), a woman N, B (the inheritance rate of 0.25), and 3 South AE (the inheritance rate of 0.25) is the same as the reasons for the judgment of the first instance.” Thus, the corresponding part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The presumption of registration of ownership preservation of the plaintiffs' assertion is the fact that a person other than the person who registered for the preservation of the ownership is declared to have been subject to the assessment of the land in question, and the specific fact of succession acquisition by the person who registered for the registration is not included in the principal shall be null and void.

Since the title holder of the assessment of the land of this case is a networkO, registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant concerning the land of this case is null and void.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return to the plaintiffs and N the ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of real name with respect to the land of this case and unjust enrichment from the possession and use of the land of this case.

B. The presumption of registration of ownership preservation on the land to be determined on the plaintiffs' claim for registration of ownership transfer is invalid, unless the person to whom the land was assessed is broken and the registered titleholder does not prove the acquisition by succession specifically.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da4705 Decided June 24, 2003, and Supreme Court Decision 2002Da43417 Decided May 26, 2005, etc.). In light of the above facts of recognition, the land of this case was subject to the assessment by the deceased on the part of the injury to the land investigation, and barring any special circumstance, the deceased acquired it initially. Thus, barring any special circumstance, it is deemed that the deceased acquired it.