1. The plaintiff's lawsuits against the defendant B, C, D, E, and F are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant in Korea.

1. We examine whether this part of the lawsuit is lawful ex officio in determining the legitimacy of the lawsuit against the defendant B, C, D, E, and F.

The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant B’s husband and the father of Defendant C, D, E, and F (Death on June 8, 2009) purchased H land on January 25, 1973, and that Defendant B, C, D, E, and F (hereinafter “Defendant’s heir”) are liable for the Plaintiff to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of the sale on the said date.

On the other hand, a final and conclusive judgment does not allow the subsequent suit identical to the subject matter of a prior suit that has res judicata effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da41349, Jan. 16, 2001). The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the inheritee in the prior suit against which the claim for cancellation of ownership transfer registration was rejected, and then brought a lawsuit against the inheritor in the subsequent suit against the heir is in conflict with the res judicata effect of the previous suit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Da4195, Feb. 13, 1990). Considering the purport of the arguments in the above cases, as a whole, the above lawsuit against the deceased on Nov. 11, 2005, which became final and conclusive by the Busan District Court Decision 200Da117186, Nov. 26, 207).

2. The Plaintiff’s determination on the claim against the Defendant’s Republic of Korea is the Defendant I.