beta
Text
1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
Basic Facts
A. On July 20, 1919 with respect to the area of 17,752 square meters of D forest in Jeju-si, Jeju-si, the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the Defendant was completed on August 31, 1981 pursuant to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership (Act No. 3094, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).
B. The deceased on November 9, 1958, and the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on August 28, 197.
C. On July 20, 1919, an assessment was made on July 20, 1919 with respect to the E Forest E- 13,983 square meters (hereinafter “D forest 17,752 square meters”) in Jeju-si, and the registration of ownership preservation was completed under the Act on Special Measures for August 31, 1981.
The deceased on December 39, 1947, and the deceased on 39, 1947, and the deceased on ASEAN as well as the sole heir. The deceased on November 2, 1948, the deceased on the deceased on 1948, and the deceased on her family registry and the deceased on her family registry and the deceased on her family registry, and the deceased on her wife R, children S, T, U, and Plaintiff B.
E. Meanwhile, L filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the performance of the procedure for the cancellation of registration of the preservation of ownership in the Defendant’s name, which was completed with respect to V forest 6,317 square meters and W forest 17,157 square meters in Jeju, in which the net F was assessed against L, but the said court dismissed L’s claim on June 20, 1990 on the ground that “No presumption of legitimacy cannot be deemed to have been reversed because it is difficult to deem that a letter of guarantee or a certificate was forged or falsified,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive as is.
Since then, the plaintiff Gap et al. filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the implementation of the procedure for the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, etc. in the name of the defendant (No. 2006Gadan15907, Jeju District Court), which was completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the deceased F, the transfer of ownership in the name of X 3,81 square meters in Jeju-si, Jeju-si, where the transfer of ownership in the name of the deceased F was completed, but the above court was true that the deceased F, etc. donated to the defendant.