Text
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
Reasons
1. When the Plaintiff’s assertion is accepted, land E with the wife population (hereinafter “E”) was owned by Plaintiff B and C’s increased portion F. The instant land was divided from E’s land.
The instant land was inherited by F’s children G and G’s husband, who was the Plaintiff’s husband, and the Plaintiff B and C’s husband.
Since the defendant completed the preservation registration of this case on the land of this case without any legal ground, the plaintiffs, co-owners of this case, who are co-owners of the land of this case, seek the cancellation of the above preservation registration.
2. In order to seek cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership in another person’s name, which was completed in relation to the real estate as part of the exercise of the right to claim exclusion of interference based on the ownership of the given real estate, the right to claim cancellation should be actively asserted and proved, and if such right is not recognized, the registration of preservation of ownership in another person’s name should not be accepted even if such right is invalid.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da108920 Decided April 28, 201, etc.). According to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 9, F, despite the fact that it was a title holder of the circumstances as to E land No. 1,515, the land of this case was divided from E and the land of this case was insufficient to recognize the Plaintiffs, who are the heir of F, as co-owners of the instant land. Thus, even if the preservation registration of this case was cancelled, the Plaintiffs’ claim cannot be accepted as the invalidation registration that should be cancelled.
Rather, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 8, in light of the fact that there were several transfers of ownership since the registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of F on July 7, 1939 as to I 1,475 in the name of G on July 7, 1939, the possibility that the land in this case was disposed of by G cannot be ruled out.
3. Conclusion, the plaintiffs' claim of this case.