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

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

1. The assertion;

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1) The Plaintiffs are the 1827 square meters in response to the F. M. M. 1, Incheon Strengthening-gun (hereinafter “instant land”).

2) The land in this case is a co-owned land under the co-owned name of G, one of the co-owners of G, one of which is H7 M, and the other five (M, N,O, P, Q, and G) in the three joint ventures in the three joint ventures in order to jointly manage the subsequent descendants in the H7 joint ventures I. The land in this case is a land under the joint situation of M, five descendants in the three joint ventures (M, N,O, P, Q, and G). The registration of co-ownership in the name of U, V, and W was completed in around 199 after K transferred its ownership without any cause. Each of the above registrations is both invalid.

3) Therefore, a third-third equity right holder of G (a joint name G succeeds to one-third of the shares of M after the circumstances and became the owner of one-third equity interest in G).

The plaintiffs, who are legal successors of the plaintiffs, are 1/3 of the net W (U's shares were transferred to X, the third house owner, and 1/3 of V's shares are maintained as the second house owner, and shall be restored to only 1/3 of the remainder.

(B) The Defendants, their successors, seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration of real name. B. The Defendants’ assertion 1) Plaintiffs cannot be deemed as legal successors G.

2) R purchased the instant land in consultation with other literature, and thereafter, after R, descendants who use and manage the instant land only for the purpose necessary for gathering K’s time, and is irrelevant to I’s agenda. 3) It is difficult to view that the Defendants’ inheritance shares in the Defendants are the shares to be transferred to the Plaintiffs.

2. 1) First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiffs are the legal successors of the deceased G. The entries of evidence Nos. 1-1 through 6, 1-3-1, 2, 127, and 29 are insufficient to recognize the Plaintiffs as the legal successors of the deceased G. Rather, there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.