1. The plaintiff's primary claim against the defendants and the conjunctive claim against the defendant B are all dismissed.

2...

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 15, 1968 on the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and thereafter on March 31, 198, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 28, 198 under the Defendant B’s name on March 28, 198; the registration of ownership transfer was completed on January 30, 1997 under the Defendant C’s name on February 27, 1997; and on December 6, 1999, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 11, 1999 under Defendant D’s name.

B. The Plaintiff is the mother of the net E.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary claim

A. Since F, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the sum total of 10 square meters, was well aware that E, the owner of the instant real estate, sold the instant real estate to Defendant B with the knowledge of the fact that E, who is an owner of the instant real estate, had no capacity to discern objection, the sales contract for the instant real estate concluded with Defendant B is null and void as it was concluded in the state

Therefore, the registration of ownership transfer completed under Defendant B’s name as to the instant real estate is invalid. Since the registration of ownership transfer, which was completed based on the above registration under Defendant B’s name, is also null and void, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for cancellation of each ownership transfer registration under the name of the Defendants as to the instant real estate to the Plaintiff, who is the heir of the deceased E, the owner of the instant real estate.

B. In the event that the registration of ownership transfer is completed with respect to the judgment real estate, not only the third party, but also the former owner is presumed to have acquired ownership by legitimate grounds for registration. Therefore, in the aspect of disputing the validity of the registration, the registration titleholder’s transfer is against the will of the former registered titleholder.