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

Purport of claim and appeal

1. The first instance court;

A. Each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant land”) was under the circumstances of B at the time of Japanese occupation. The old land cadastre and land cadastre concerning the said land are written that “CD et al. and 14 persons” acquired ownership on August 7, 1939 (attached Form 1(3) on December 16, 1932), but the co-owner’s annual list is written only in D’s name.

B. As to each of the instant lands, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of “D and 14 persons”, since the joint list, which is a part of the registry, was destroyed, the relevant registry was closed on March 21, 2003, and the current registry was not opened.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 5, 6 through 15, Eul evidence 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff is a clan that consists of descendants aged 10 years or older of E 19 years old, and each land of this case is a clan property, and the fact that the plaintiff received a circumstance from the name of clan B was nominal, and the plaintiff terminated the title trust against the co-owners listed in the separate sheet No. 2, who succeeded to it from B through J, D, etc., and therefore, the above co-owners' co-ownership of each land of this case against the defendant is sought as co-ownership by subrogation of the above co-owners.

B. Even if not, the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the co-owners listed in the separate sheet No. 2, on behalf of the above co-owners, as it acquired the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership by way of the completion of the statute of limitation of possession by occupying each land of this case in peace and openly with the intent to own it for at least 20 years.

3. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. The reasoning of this Court's judgment on the Defendant's main defense is that of the judgment of the court of first instance.