1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 8 (including the branch numbers if any):

In the Land Survey Book prepared in the Japanese Occupation Period, E is indicated as being subject to the assessment of 1840 square meters H 1840 square meters by omitting the G portion in Gwangju City (hereinafter referred to as “Fri only”)

B. On November 12, 1957, the said H land was divided into several parcels, including I due diligence 716 square meters, and again, the I land was replaced with JJ 902 square meters and K 1,388 square meters on March 16, 1976, and thereafter, the said land became the instant land by combining K land with C.

C. On the other hand, on September 30, 1958, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on November 4, 1961 when the registration of ownership transfer was completed on the part of M in the future, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 19, 1964.

After that, on September 16, 1980, the registration of ownership transfer for K's land was completed on September 16, 1980 on the O, and the registration of ownership transfer for 1/3 shares based on P, Q, and R's donation was completed on April 10, 200. On August 7, 2009, the registration of ownership transfer based on consultation on public land has been completed on August 7, 2009, and the combination of the above land and C was completed on June 7, 2013.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion I land is divided from H land under the circumstances of the plaintiffs, which is the prior owner of the land, and the registration of preservation of ownership of L surface, which is completed on the ground of the invalid preservation registration, is null and void. Since the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant with respect to the land of this case is also null and void, the plaintiffs, who are the successors of S, exercise their right of exclusion of interference based on ownership, and recover the plaintiffs' inheritance shares among the land of this case against the defendant.