1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. As to the instant land, the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on February 26, 1985 in K’s name, and the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on October 30, 1985 under L’s name, and on December 19, 1987 under the Defendant’s name.

B. K died on November 30, 1994, and as its inheritor, there is Plaintiff B, C, D, E, F,G, and H, the spouse of Plaintiff A and his children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion and judgment

A. As to the primary claim, the Plaintiffs asserted that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of L was made by forging a sales contract in the name of K, and that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of K is invalid, and that the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Defendant is also null and void. Thus, the Defendant asserts that as the owner of the land of this case, the Plaintiffs, who are the heir of K, are liable to implement the procedure for ownership transfer registration based on the restoration

The sales contract in the name of K was forged on the sole basis of the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 9 and 10

It is insufficient to recognize that L/L or the transfer registration of ownership in the name of the defendant is null and void, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so the above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

B. The Plaintiffs asserted that the conjunctive claim had occupied the instant land in a peaceful and public performance with the intent to own it for twenty (20) years, and sought against the Defendants the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration due to the completion of the statute of limitations for possession.

On the other hand, the plaintiffs' evidence No. 10, which corresponds to the fact that the plaintiffs occupied the land of this case for 20 years, are hard to believe, and the video and witness N testimony of the evidence No. 6 through 8 are insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

3. All of the plaintiffs' claims of this case are justified.