1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Since the sales contract concluded between the Plaintiffs’ assertion, the father of Defendant E, and the Defendant F is nonexistent or invalid for the following reasons, the registration of the Defendants’ transfer of ownership on the instant real estate must be cancelled in entirety.

① On December 28, 1991, the deceased G was hospitalized in the Macheon Hospital and died on January 6, 1992. The contract of sales (Evidence B) between the deceased G submitted by the Defendant and the Defendant F was not prepared by the network G.

② In relation to the sale of the instant real estate, the network G did not grant the right of representation to Defendant E.

③ In addition, there is no details of monetary transactions between the network G and Defendant F.

2. The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim against the defense prior to the merits was unlawful after the lapse of the exclusion period as a claim for recovery of inheritance, since Defendant E created a false contract on the ground of Defendant F, a title truster, which had been in a management of his seal imprint at the time of the deceased Party G’s death, and had temporarily absconded the inherited property and lost the inheritance right by being transferred again, the Defendants asserted that the instant lawsuit is unlawful.

However, it is difficult to interpret the plaintiffs' claim of this case as the assertion that there is no or no sales contract between the deceased G and Defendant F, and that there is no or no inheritance right infringement.

(C) The Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff would transfer the instant real estate to the Plaintiffs prior to the death should be attributed to the Plaintiff in excess of the inheritance right (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1538, Apr. 2, 201).

3. In the event that the judgment on the cause of the claim is completed, it is presumed that not only the third party but also the former owner acquired ownership by legitimate cause of registration. The plaintiff denies the presumption of registration.