1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

In fact, the defendant completed the registration of transfer of ownership on January 20, 1978, with respect to the land owned by the plaintiff A, the annexed real estate list 1, the annexed real estate list 4 and the annexed real estate list 5 owned by the plaintiff C, and the real estate list 5 owned by the deceased G.

On the other hand, plaintiffs D, E, and F are the successors of the network G.

On October 30, 1979, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer based on a gift made on November 30, 1973 by the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership Transfer of Real Estate (Act No. 3094, Dec. 31, 1977; hereinafter “Special Measures Act”) with respect to the land listed in the list 2 and 3 of the attached real estate list No. 2 and 3 owned by Plaintiff B.

(A) The Plaintiff A, B, C, and G did not have any donation of each land indicated in the real estate list to the Defendant. However, the Defendant, while running a Saemaul farming business in the Goyang-si, forged the gift contract without due process of land expropriation, and completed each registration of ownership transfer without permission. The Plaintiff A, B, C, and G did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition [the grounds for recognition], and the purport of the entire statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including partial verification numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire argument.

In particular, in the case of the attached list 2 and 3 of the real estate list Nos. 2 and 3 owned by the Plaintiff B, the registration of ownership transfer was completed under the Act on Special Measures. Since there is no donation contract and there is no guarantee or confirmation document under the Act on Special Measures, it is not confirmed that the Defendant has completed the registration procedure under the Act on Special Measures,

Therefore, since each ownership transfer registration of this case is all null and void, the defendant is based on the recovery of each real estate stated in the separate list as stated in the purport of the claim.