In its reasoning, the court below rejected the defendants' claim that the plaintiff 1 purchased from the non-party 1 on January 10, 1918, which was entrusted to the non-party 1, who is a clan of Sam Gim, and died on October 27, 1935. Although the non-party 1 was two children, the non-party 2 (the judgment of the court is stated as ○○, but it is clear in light of Gap evidence 6) and the non-party 3, who is South Korea, died first, since the non-party 1 died first, the non-party 3, who is the non-party 3, the non-party 3, a lineal descendant of the non-party 1, and the non-party 4 succeeded to the forestry map of this case as his heir, and the non-party 4 succeeded to the forestry map of this case, because the non-party 1 was entrusted with the succession of the forest land of this case, the non-party 1 purchased from the non-party 1 in its own name, the plaintiff 1's wife and the defendant's new trust of this case.

However, according to the customary law prior to the enforcement of the Civil Code, where the head of family dies and there is no male who will inherit the head of family, the head of family and property rights are inherited in the order of the father, mother, and wife. Meanwhile, according to the records of evidence Nos. 6 (No. 68Da1587, Feb. 4, 1969), the court below's decision that the non-party No. 3, who is the second male of the non-party No. 1, was divided at the non-party No. 10, Feb. 10, 1919; the non-party No. 4, the second male of the non-party No. 3, the non-party No. 3, the same day, the non-party No. 3, the wife of the non-party No. 1, and the non-party No. 6, the head of the non-party No. 4 and the non-party No. 1, the non-party No. 4 did not have any reasonable grounds for the judgment as above. pointing the above. 1's.

Therefore, this appeal is without merit to determine the remainder of the grounds of appeal, and therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park So-young (Presiding Justice)