1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On January 6, 1919, the Forest Survey Division prepared by the Joseon General Division under the Land Survey Ordinance enforced during the Japanese Occupation Period was written as the fact that L was under the assessment of 7 parts of the entire 4th M in Pakistan-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”).

B. The land before the instant partition was divided into 1,363 square meters before J on September 13, 1993, N43 square meters before K, and 2,530 square meters before K, and cadastral restoration was performed.

C. Since J’s land and K’s land were re-divided. On May 18, 1995, the Defendants filed a registration of preservation of ownership under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (hereinafter “Special Measures Act”), which was enforced at the time with respect to the land of 1,297 square meters and the land of 2,371 square meters in K prior to J as well as the land of 2,371 square meters in K (hereinafter “instant land”).

On the other hand, the plaintiffs' prior directors died on November 15, 1956, and their P succeeded to Australia and property. P died on August 27, 1964, and the plaintiffs jointly succeeded to their property.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 5, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the land of this case was under the circumstance of the plaintiff's prior owner, and the plaintiffs owned the land of this case since the plaintiff was the deceased's heir. The registration of preservation of ownership in the name of the defendants with respect to the land of this case is based on a false guarantee document or was made without going through lawful procedures under the Act on Special Measures. Therefore,

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to implement the procedure for cancellation registration of the registration of the preservation of ownership of this case to the plaintiffs.

B. However, the plaintiffs' assertion is rejected for the following reasons.

1. First, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is difficult to view the assessment titleholder and the plaintiffs’ protocol as the same person.

L, the assessment title of the land of this case, and the plaintiffs O.