1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The plaintiff's father D is the land before the division of each land listed in the attached Table No. 641 (the land is prior to the division of each land listed in the attached Table No. 641), which is the property devolving upon the defendant's 5 Gama and rice 1 Gama 8 4 Gama, pursuant to the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging to the defendant

All of the above lands before and after the division are “instant land”

(2) On February 25, 1980, the Plaintiffs, including the Plaintiffs, purchased the land of this case and acquired the ownership of the land of this case by completely paying the above rice and barley. (3) On February 25, 1980, the inheritors of the deceased, including the Plaintiffs (including the inheritors who have succeeded to the deceased’s heir in succession again), agreed to divide the inherited property by inheritance of 1/3 of the land of this case by the Plaintiffs.

3. On the other hand, the registration of ownership transfer has been completed in the name of the defendant, and the defendant is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of sale as of November 5, 1956 to the plaintiffs, who are the deceased D's successors, the owner of the land of this case.

B. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone does not recognize that the Plaintiff purchased the instant land, which is the property devolving upon D’s denial network D, from the Defendant and acquired ownership by completing the repayment of the price. Even if the instant land was owned by the network D, the Defendant was recorded in the attached real estate list among the instant land around 1973.

2. The land was lawfully acquired in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for Readjustment of Requisitioned Property.

2. Therefore, with respect to whether the plaintiffs' denying network D purchased the land of this case, which is the property devolving upon the plaintiffs, the health care unit No. 13 and No. 15 of the evidence No. 15 asserted that the plaintiffs purchased the land of this case, cannot be viewed as evidence to acknowledge it since the plaintiffs' assertion that it corresponds to it is not stated, and according to the evidence No. 4-1, each of the above documentary evidence is not a document stating the details of sale of the property devolving upon the ownership.