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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the dismissal as follows, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. We dismiss “2. Party’s assertion” in Section 4, 16 of the first instance judgment as “2. Plaintiff’s assertion” and delete “A. Plaintiff” in Section 17.

The 10th to 16th of the first instance judgment are as follows.

The main sentence of Article 1087(1) of the Civil Act provides that a right which becomes the object of a will shall not be effective if it does not belong to inherited property at the time of the death of the testator, and the proviso of the same paragraph provides that even though the testator does not belong to inherited property at the time of his/her death, when the testator is a doctor to become effective, (1) shall acquire such right and transfer it to the donee, and the above provision shall also apply mutatis mutandis to private donation

As seen in the above B, the land of this case at the time of the deceased's death cannot be deemed as the ownership of the deceased, and according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments Nos. 10 and 11 (including each number), the testament of this case cannot be recognized as the testament of this case because the testament of this case failed to meet the requirements and methods as a testament by the certificate of self-certificate as stipulated in the Civil Act, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise that the deceased intended to testament or donate the land of this case, which is not inherited property, to the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's main and ancillary claims against the defendant B, C, and D are without merit.

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.