1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The land survey division prepared during the Japanese occupation period with respect to the land of 2,312 JJ in Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant assessment land”) is indicated by K as the assessment of the said land.

B. On May 8, 1928, K died on August 7, 2005, and L, which is the head of K and the sole property heir, died on August 7, 2005, L, which is L’s wife (3/11 shares) and children, N, E, Plaintiff F, and Plaintiff G (2/11 shares each), jointly inherited L’s property. M died on November 14, 2006, and M jointly inherited N, E, Plaintiff F, and Plaintiff G (1/4 shares each), and as N died on September 7, 2012, N jointly inherited N’s property. As N died on September 7, 2012, Plaintiff A (3/9 shares), children, Plaintiff B, C, Plaintiff D, and Plaintiff D (2/9 shares each of N’s shares) shared inherited N’s property.

C. On March 20, 1953, the G-do “1,347 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) was divided into the instant land on March 20, 1953, and the said I land was “4,453 square meters prior to Gwangju-si, Gwangju-gun,” due to the conversion of the area and the change of the name of the administrative district. Since then, on September 28, 2001, after the division and the change of the name of the administrative district, the land was “1,854 square meters prior to Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

The defendant completed the registration of ownership preservation on August 16, 1973 on the land of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including all branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiffs’ assertion 1 of the instant land was inherited to the Plaintiffs after K, who is the preferred owner of the instant land, received the assessment under its name, and was owned by the Plaintiffs. The Defendant completed registration of preservation of ownership even if it is not a lawful owner of the instant land. Therefore, registration of invalidation of cause is void.

Therefore, the plaintiffs are based on the restoration of the true title of registration against the defendant as to the land of this case.