1. The lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, ..

In relation to the registration of each land listed in the separate sheet confirming the judgment subject to a retrial, M Forest M-17-2 group 2 group 5 (hereinafter “instant land before the instant division”) was assessed on July 30, 1919 by the Defendant’s increased portion of L, which was the Japanese colonial rule.

However, registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of the defendant under the receipt No. 2417 of August 3, 1960 of the Suwon District Court's Sung-nam Branch Office for the land before the division of this case.

In other words, the land before the division was divided into each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) on February 25, 1970. With respect to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1 among them, each registration of ownership transfer in the Defendant’s name was completed on October 22, 1970, on October 26, 197, under the name of N, October 26, 197, under the name of P, Q, R, under the name of P, June 18, 197, under the name of P, Q, and R, under the name of the Defendant on February 21, 1998, under the name of N on October 22, 1970, and under the name of the Defendant on January 19, 1971.

On September 6, 2012, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the confirmation of ownership and the cancellation of registration of ownership preservation in the name of the Defendant as to the land listed in the separate sheet No. 1, 2012, Suwon District Court Branch Branch 2012Gahap1606, asserting that each land listed in the separate sheet No. 2016 was owned by the Plaintiffs as the land for which the net L, which is an increased portion of the Plaintiffs

On July 12, 2013, the first instance court rendered a judgment dismissing the part concerning the plaintiffs' claim for confirmation of ownership due to the lack of interest in confirmation, and dismissed the part concerning the claim for cancellation of registration of ownership preservation.

Accordingly, the plaintiffs appealed to this Court No. 2013Na2015652, and the claims were exchanged to seek implementation of the ownership transfer registration procedure due to the restoration of the real name.

On December 24, 2013, this Court rendered a judgment for review that the plaintiffs dismissed all claims that have been changed in exchange at the trial, and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is.