1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. As to the 4393 square meters (hereinafter “the land before the instant subdivision”) prior to K in Jeju where the registration of ownership transfer was completed in M’s name, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on July 22, 1986 on the ground of “the inheritance on June 20, 1974,” under the name of N and N, a spouse of M, and Q, and the name of the Plaintiff (O: 3/7 shares, N, and Plaintiff: 2/7 shares), and on July 28, 1986, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the ground of “the sale on July 25, 1986,” and thereafter, the land before the instant subdivision was divided into the 4173 square meters prior to K and the 220 square meters adjacent to a road (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

B. On December 28, 2013, R died without being left by the Defendants, who are the substitute successors of their children and children, as an inheritor.

(The shares of each defendant's inheritance shall be as shown in the attached Table). 【No dispute exists concerning the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment as to the plaintiff

A. First, the Plaintiff asserts that the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of R with respect to each of the instant lands is invalid since R forged and completed a cause for registration without purchasing each of the instant lands from N, and thus, it constitutes invalid cause. Thus, the Defendants, co-inheritors of R, who are co-inheritors, are liable to implement the procedure for cancellation of transfer of ownership as to each of the inheritance shares listed in the attached Table among the instant lands, to the Plaintiff.

However, evidence Nos. 4-3, 7, 8, 9-3, 10, 11, and witness N’s testimony alone are insufficient to recognize that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of each of the land of this case was completed on the basis of forged grounds for registration, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the first Plaintiff’s above assertion on a different premise does not need to be examined further.