1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-Road 453 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) was registered on June 20, 1959, and was converted into 641 square meters on June 30, 1997, and converted into 641 square meters on June 30, 1997, the Dongjak-gu Seoul E-Road 634 square meters on the same day as each of the two divided periods, and 535 square meters on February 18, 1998, the Dongjak-gu Seoul E-Road 535 square meters on August 30, 2019, and the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E-Road 453 square meters on August 30, 2019.

B. On November 15, 1958, Nonparty G, including F, purchased “Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul,” and divided the said land into “I or E” on June 20, 1959. The F solely owned the said divided land of “Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu J” among the said divided land.

In the indication column for the title of the closed register, it is written as the Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government J, Large 71 square, and is written as “trade, G, and nine other”, “division of co-owned property, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government K and L” in the column for title of the closed register.

C. Of the divided lands, the instant land (E) was registered as part of the divided land’s passage route, and as part of the divided land, Nonparty G, including Nonparty G, and nine persons, and F, registered as co-owners, indicated as L and Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City K.

On April 19, 1965, the above F changed the registered matters in the register on the land of "J" from "L" to "M", and the address was changed from "Y" to "Y of Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government". On the same day on the same day, the above F completed the registration of ownership transfer to the non-party O (resident: Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan GovernmentJ) on the ground of sale.

[Ground of recognition] Items 3, 4, 9, 10-1, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs alleged that the F (L) of the co-owner of the instant land is the same person as F (M) and the defendant who is the State.