1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the F and G, the representative of the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 23, 1941, non- I and 19 persons completed the registration of ownership transfer for reasons of sale on March 20, 1941 with respect to H 516 square meters (hereinafter “the instant real property”).

B. On October 11, 1994, Korea completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of reversion of rights on September 11, 194, with respect to the instant real property.

C. On October 18, 2002, J completed the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the prescriptive acquisition on November 25, 1994.

The J died on March 5, 2004, and the Defendants are the successors of J.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5, 11 to 14, the purpose of the whole pleading

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff’s text was the actual owner of the instant real estate, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on a trust basis with the name of 19 persons, other than the 19 co-ownership, which is the cause of the instant real estate.

However, the Republic of Korea knew that the above co-owners were Japan and completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 11, 1948.

As one of the co-owners, K (L) as the father of the Defendants, KJ filed a lawsuit against the Republic of Korea on November 25, 1994 on the land of this case and won the lawsuit, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 18, 2002 with the knowledge that it was owned in the Plaintiff’s door, and completed the registration of ownership transfer in its name.

The Plaintiff’s heir, the trustee, terminated the title trust agreement by serving a duplicate of the instant complaint on the Defendants. As such, the Defendants are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer based on the termination of title trust with respect to each of 1/4 shares out of the instant real estate.

3. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety alleged that F and G do not have legitimate power of representation. Thus, whether the above persons are the plaintiff's representative, and whether there was a notice of convening a general meeting, a legitimate resolution of the general meeting in the instant lawsuit is adopted.