1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. As to the land owned by Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Fro 267.8 square meters (hereinafter “instant land before the instant subdivision”), Defendant Republic of Korea completed the attachment registration under the Seoul Central District Court’s mid-gu Registry No. 33327, Jul. 21, 2014, and the attachment registration under the receipt No. 47024, Sept. 3, 2015 of the same registry office on the ground of the delinquency in payment of local taxes, based on the taxation claim, on the grounds that the Seoul Central District Court’s registry office was received on July 21, 2014, and Defendant Pju City completed the provisional attachment registration under the same registry office’s receipt of the order of provisional attachment 2015Kadan50376, Oct. 28, 2015.

B. The Defendants filed a lawsuit against E on February 8, 2017 against the claim for ownership transfer registration due to the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession with respect to part of the land prior to the instant partition (each portion of the real estate indicated in the attached list).

Accordingly, E appealed and appealed, but all of the appeals were dismissed, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

C. On January 12, 208, the land before the instant subdivision was divided into real estate indicated in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Fro 256 square meters and each of the real estate indicated in the separate sheet. On January 22, 2018, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on the real estate listed in the separate sheet Nos. 2 and 3 as to the real estate listed in the separate sheet, and the Plaintiff B completed the registration of ownership transfer based on each of the prescriptive acquisition.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6, Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and the judgment plaintiffs asserted that since each real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the plaintiffs is extremely valuable as part of the land before the division of this case, there is no interest to maintain the registration of seizure and provisional seizure, the registration of seizure and provisional seizure in the name of the defendants as to each real estate listed in the separate sheet should be cancelled.

However, after the completion of the acquisition by prescription, the prescriptive acquisitor shall acquire the ownership of the land or the limited real right before the registration.