1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The plaintiffs asserted that the land of this case was registered under the name of the plaintiffs and the mother of the defendant (the deceased on March 22, 1995). However, the defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership in his own name (hereinafter referred to as the "registration of transfer of ownership of this case") on August 17, 1971 pursuant to the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Forest Land (amended by Act No. 2111 on May 21, 1969, hereinafter referred to as the "Special Measures Act").

In other words, since the Defendant did not purchase the instant land from F, the registration of transfer of ownership in this case is null and void as the cause thereof is, or the ownership transfer registration of this case was broken under the Act on Special Measures, and thus, the Plaintiffs, the heir of F, seek implementation of the procedure for registration of cancellation of transfer of ownership in this case as to each of the shares inherited among the instant land, to the Defendant.

Judgment

Even if a person who has completed registration pursuant to the Act on Special Measures recognizes that the cause of acquisition stated in a letter of guarantee or written confirmation is different from the fact, if that person asserts that he/she has acquired his/her right according to another cause of acquisition, it is clear that the registration pursuant to the Act on Special Measures cannot be completed in the assertion itself as the case where the date of the cause of acquisition is not applicable to the Act on Special Measures is the same

Unless there exist special circumstances, such as where it is obvious that it is a dead tool, it cannot be deemed that the presumption of a completed registration under the Act on Special Measures for the sole reason of the above, barring any special circumstances, and the presumption of the registration should be proven to the extent that the fact that the cause of acquisition newly asserted by other data is not true is broken, as long as it is suspected that it is not true.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2000Da71388, 71395, Nov. 22, 2001). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the health unit, A evidence No. 2, and Plaintiff B’s personal examination result, the Defendant on February 19, 2013.