2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

3. Text of the judgment of the court of first instance;

2. Claim against the Defendants for the provisional registration of ownership transfer and claim for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration as to the instant land;

3. The reasons for this Court’s claim for cancellation of registration of ownership preservation against the Defendants are as stated in paragraphs 1, 3, and 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for dismissal or addition as follows:

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “Article 1, 3, and 5” shall be construed as “Article 1, 2, and (3)”, “Defendant I” as “the network H”, “Defendant B” as “the network H”, and “Defendant B” as “Defendant B,” respectively. Nos. 4, 3, 4, and 5, 420 to 4, 5, 5, 1979” as “the 11st day of December, 1979.” On September 23, 2014, Defendant W bears the following comprehensive legacy of the instant land and buildings, and Defendant W was given testimony as a witness of the executor of the will on his/her own property, and Defendant W-1, 3, as the witness of the will, was designated as the executor of the will on his/her own property, and Defendant W-1, as the executor of the will on his/her her 14th day of September 1, 2014.

① The I consistently stated that the instant land was donated to the Plaintiff through the confirmation document of facts, and testified to the same effect in the trial.

② Examining the detailed statement made by I, I had a special relationship with the deceased who had been aware of about 60 years prior to their 60 years ago, and had a special relationship with her husband, who had been a diplomat, for a long time in a foreign country, with the intention to assist the plaintiff to play a key role in the consumer protection movement after returning home in around 1979. The deceased agreed to donate the land of this case to the plaintiff, who prepared the land of this case.