1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

The ownership of the land originally owned by K was successively transferred as stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as the “instant land”).

Detailed details are as follows:

[A] The summary of the plaintiffs' assertion against the defendants, who are K MNO NE P P E P P, QR F, QR, QV, QV IK, and subsequent grandchildren, is as follows.

In light of the following precedents and legal principles of the Supreme Court established with respect to the presumption power of registration made in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Development and Operation of the Republic of Korea, the registration in the name of the Defendants is not deemed null and void.

In addition, there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion of the plaintiffs.

All of the plaintiffs' claims shall not be accepted.

The dismissal is dismissed.

Registration completed by the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 1977) shall be presumed to be registration in accordance with the substantive legal relationship, and a letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed by the said Act was false or forged.

Unless it is proved that the registration has not been duly made due to any other reason, the presumption of registration of ownership or registration of transfer shall not be broken, and the false letter of guarantee or confirmation here means a letter of guarantee or confirmation that the substantial contents of the changes in rights are inconsistent with the truth, unless it is proved that the registration has been duly made.

In addition, in light of the fact that the above Special Measures Act permits the actual transferee of real estate to make a registration inconsistent with the process of the alteration of a right, the date of purchase, which is the cause of the acquisition of the right, is later than the date of death of the original owner or the former registration titleholder, or the entry of the name of the seller or the date of purchase in the letter of guarantee or written confirmation, is different from the actual one, or the entry of specific grounds for the alteration

Even if so, it cannot be said that the legal presumption of legitimacy of the registration has been broken.

Supreme Court Decision 99 delivered on September 1997