1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant and the deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) had both husband and wife, D, Plaintiff and the designated person as their children.

B. The Deceased died on January 14, 2009.

C. On August 26, 2009, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant real estate owned by the Deceased (hereinafter “the instant registration of ownership transfer”) based on inheritance due to a consultation and division under Article 36498, which was received from the Changwon District Court’s grace office.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff and the designated parties did not agree to the division of inherited property regarding the instant real estate, and the Defendant asserted that the instant claim seeking the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration is unlawful, since the Plaintiff and the designated parties filed the instant lawsuit after the lapse of the exclusion period of three years from the time the Plaintiff and the designated parties knew that the ownership transfer registration was completed, on the ground that the instant claim was unlawful.

B. In a case where, on the premise that the heir is a true heir with respect to the inheritance of property, a claim for the cancellation, etc. of the registration of the real estate, which is the inherited property, is filed against the co-inheritors who have succeeded to the property on the premise that the ownership or the right of share belongs to the true heir, it is reasonable to interpret the claim as a lawsuit for the recovery of inheritance under Article 999 of the Civil Act, regardless of the cause of the claim, unless the claim is based on the inheritance (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 90Da5740, Dec. 24, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 2003Da49832, Jul. 22, 2004).