1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

ex officio, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

The Plaintiff asserted that each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “each real estate of this case”) was trusted to the clan members of the Plaintiff clan, and that each title trust agreement was terminated by the delivery of the complaint of this case, and sought the registration procedure for ownership transfer against the Defendants, who are some successors of the deceased G and deceased H, among the successors of each real estate of this case.

However, if the plaintiff again files a new lawsuit with the same content despite a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the plaintiff, it shall be dismissed as there is no benefit in protecting rights

(See Supreme Court Decisions 68Da2191, Feb. 4, 1969; 78Da2290, Feb. 13, 1979). In a case where the interruption of litigation procedures due to the death of a party during the proceeding of a lawsuit is limited and the pleading is terminated and the judgment is pronounced, the judgment is unlawful in the procedure that results in the exclusion of legitimate assignees who are entitled to participate in the lawsuit, but the judgment shall not be deemed null and void as a matter of course. However, as the judgment was not duly represented by an agent, it is only possible to seek the revocation by an appeal or retrial on the ground of defects in the power of representation. Thus, it is reasonable to grant the succeeding execution clause to enforce compulsory execution against the deceased’s successor based on the judgment indicated by the deceased party.

(Supreme Court Order 98Hun-Ga6696 Decided May 30, 1998). In this case, comprehensively taking account of the health team, Gap evidence 8-1, Gap evidence 9-1-1, and each fact-finding inquiry reply to the head of Daegu Metropolitan City, Seogu, and Dong head of this court, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the procedure of claiming the transfer of ownership against the deceased, G, and 133 persons, including both the purport of the claim of this case, as Daegu District Court Order 2010Kadan6696.