1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Two-thirds of the shares in the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant shares”) were owned by the deceased I (hereinafter “the deceased”), and the deceased died on January 1, 1973. As to the instant shares, the Daegu District Court No. 74882, Nov. 25, 2005, No. 74882, Jan. 1, 1973, the registration of the transfer of the Defendant’s ownership was completed in the future.

B. The plaintiff A is the deceased's wife, and the plaintiff C is the deceased's independent heir of the deceased J (the divorce on February 17, 1993, the death on April 20, 2003) who is the south of the deceased, and the remaining plaintiffs and the defendant are the children of the deceased, and the legal shares of the plaintiffs and the defendant are as shown in the attached Table 2.

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

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the share in this case is the deceased's heir, and the defendant's joint inherited property, notwithstanding the fact that the defendant would make an application for inheritance registration according to the inheritance ratio, and received documents necessary for the division of inherited property from the plaintiffs on November 25, 2005, and infringed the plaintiff's inheritance rights by completing the inheritance registration under the defendant's sole name on November 25, 2005. Thus, the above transfer registration of ownership completed in the future in the defendant's future is null and void. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to implement the cancellation registration procedure on each part of the above plaintiffs' inheritance

B. In light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 7, 8, 9, and evidence Nos. 11-1, 13, and 14, which appear to be consistent with the assertion that the defendant deceivings the plaintiffs and completed the registration without permission as above, it is difficult to believe in light of the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 7, 8, 9, and No. 11-1, No. 13, and No. 14, respectively, and rather, according to the statements Nos. 1 through 4, the plaintiffs and the defendant intend to avoid the timely procedure around November 25, 2005.