1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. E, the father of the Plaintiffs’ assertion, owned a building on the ground indicated in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”), and leased the instant land, and due to the death of E, the Plaintiffs and F inherited the right of lease of E.

However, the defendant filed a lawsuit against F only the Daegu District Court in accordance with the Daegu District Court Decision 2017Kadan6138 and received a favorable judgment, and subject to compulsory execution on June 21, 2018 with respect to real estate stated in the separate sheet based on the executory exemplification.

Since the above execution is related to the real estate possessed and owned by the plaintiffs, it shall be dismissed.

B. Even if based on the copy of the register (No. 2-6 of the evidence No. 2) on the instant land building, the owner of the said building is not E or the Plaintiffs but G and H, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiffs have the ownership of the building.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims on different premise are without merit.

In this regard, the plaintiffs asserted that there is a ground for the third party's objection since they purchased the building of this case from G and H and have the right to claim ownership transfer registration.

However, even if a sales contract was concluded as alleged as such, since the validity of the claim for ownership transfer registration, which is a claim against G and H, cannot be asserted to the defendant as a third party, the above assertion cannot be accepted.

Meanwhile, while the Plaintiff specified the instant land as a real estate seeking non-permission of compulsory execution, it is also deemed that it is intended to refuse the execution of the instant land building in light of the above assertion or the order of final and conclusive judgment.

However, even if a specific object is selected as the ground building of the instant land, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiffs have the ownership or the right to possess the said building.