Each appeal by Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4 is dismissed.

The costs of appeal as to this part shall be borne by the Defendants.

In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of ownership on July 20, 1919, the original judgment stated that: (a) on October 20, 1927, the deceased non-party 1’s house located in Seoul ( Address omitted), 54 representative of the Plaintiff 1’s clan shall hold a general meeting; and (b) up to the decision to trust two parcels other than the forest land to 6 persons, respectively; (c) on July 20, 1919, there is no proof that the Plaintiff acquired the forest land of this case before the forest land of this case, and (d) on July 20, 1927, the court below recognized the Plaintiff’s assertion that the part of the Plaintiff’s testimony of this case to the effect that the Plaintiff 2 was the forest land of this case under the name of Nonparty 1’s title, and that the Plaintiff’s testimony of this case may not be deemed as the forest land of this case under the same purport as the Plaintiff’s testimony of this case under the name of Nonparty 2 (No. 2). 3).

However, if the court below decided on October 20, 1927 that the forest land of this case will be entrusted to 6 members of the plaintiff clan, it should be premised on the ownership of the forest land of this case. If 54 members present at the clan general meeting of this case are found to own the forest land of this case by the defendant 1, it shall not be possible to adopt a resolution on trust. Thus, if 54 members present at the clan general meeting of this case are found to own the forest land of this case, it is necessary to examine and determine which crude oil and registration should be made, and if defendant 1 recognizes that the forest land of this case is owned by the plaintiff Grand clan general meeting of this case, the court below should have determined that the forest land of this case is owned by the plaintiff Grand branch of this case, and if the original evidence of this case has been reproduced again, the court below should have determined that it would not affect the existence of the original copy of this case or that it would not affect the conclusion of the judgment of the Seoul High Court, and it should not be justified.

Defendant 2, Defendant 3, and Defendant 4’s agent’s grounds of appeal are examined.

However, even if the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff's claim and the purport of the claim is stated in the pleading protocol, even if there is no separate recognition protocol, the lawsuit is terminated at the same time as the final judgment is valid (Supreme Court Decision 4294Sang1080 delivered on May 3, 1962, and Supreme Court Decision 4 and defendant 2). In this case, the court below stated that in the second pleading of the court of first instance, defendant 4 and defendant 2 sought a judgment identical to the plaintiff's claim and all the arguments of the plaintiff are presented at the fourth pleading of the court of first instance, it shall be deemed that the defendants recognized the plaintiff's claim and accepted the plaintiff's claim, and even if there is no separate recognition protocol, it shall be deemed as having the same effect as the final judgment, and therefore the lawsuit shall be deemed to have been terminated. The defendant's appeal shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, by applying Articles 95, 93 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Jong-young Kim Young-ho