1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for this court’s explanation are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiffs as to the additional argument in the trial of the court of first instance as follows, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

(In short, it is insufficient to reverse the fact-finding and judgment of the first instance court only with the testimony of the witness T in the trial). 2. Judgment on the additional argument in the trial

A. Since the actual owner of the real estate listed in paragraph (1) of the attached list No. 1 of the plaintiffs' summary of the plaintiffs' assertion (hereinafter "the land of this case") is the network H, the defendant is obligated to implement the procedure for registration of cancellation of ownership transfer, which was completed on May 18, 1995 by the Mine Office of Gwangju District Court as to the land of this case, to the plaintiffs who are the deceased He's heir.

B. The reasoning of the judgment is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the actual owner of the instant land was the deceased H solely with the statement of No. 10 and the testimony of K witness of the first instance trial, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the evidence No. 1-1 and evidence No. 2-2 of this case as to the land of this case, the ownership transfer registration based on the sale on April 9, 1948 was completed in the G of April 30, 1948, and on May 18, 1995 pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502, Nov. 30, 1992), it is only recognized that the ownership transfer registration based on the sale on May 30, 1965 has been completed.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' assertion is without merit.

3. As such, the part of the lawsuit in this case's claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration is unlawful, and it is dismissed as the remaining claims of the plaintiffs are without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is justified as it is consistent with this conclusion, and the plaintiffs' appeal is dismissed in its entirety as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.