1. The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Facts without dispute;

(a) the network J shall be punished by the network K;

The Plaintiffs are the deceased K’s successors, and the Defendants are the successors of the deceased J.

B. On February 18, 1965, there was a registry with respect to the 4,106 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) prior to Sim-si (hereinafter “instant registry”) in which the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the name of K on February 18, 1965.

However, on June 8, 1983, the J completed the registration of ownership preservation under the former Act on Special Measures for the Transfer, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3562), which was in force at the time of the enforcement of the land of this case, under the Daegu District Court’s receipt of registration office, the registration of ownership preservation was completed. Accordingly, a new register concerning the said real estate (hereinafter “second register”) was prepared.

After that, on April 25, 2012, Plaintiff B completed the registration of transfer of ownership on the ground of testamentary gift from No. 6353, which was received from the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court), under Article 6353, as to the instant land.

(c) The first register was closed at around 2005.

After that, the Defendants filed a lawsuit against the rest of the Plaintiffs except the Plaintiff A on the ground that the registration of ownership preservation in the name of J in the second register constitutes duplicate registration, and that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff B, which was based on the invalid registration of ownership preservation, is also null and void, and won the remainder of the shares except for the shares of Plaintiff A.

(Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na310290, August 17, 2016, the Plaintiffs asserted that: (a) the deceased K borrowed money from the GJ and agreed to pay in kind the instant land with respect to the borrowed money; (b) accordingly, on June 8, 1983, the LJ made a registration of preservation of ownership under the former Special Measures Act; and (c) the acquisition by prescription was completed by an ombudsman by occupying the said land in peace and openly and openly with the intent to own the said land for twenty (20) years thereafter.

However, the evidence Nos. 7, 8, and 9 and the testimony of witness L alone are the case between J and K.