1. All appeals filed by Plaintiffs (Appointeds) and their designated parties, and Plaintiff W are dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff (appointed party) of the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance is added to the evidence submitted in this court.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the parts that are dismissed or added as follows, and thus, it is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

D) The part of the judgment of the court of first instance (1) is reversed as 'g.' during the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance (6).

② On June 10, 2019, the appeal proceedings were pending following the third 7th instance judgment. As the deceased on June 10, 2019, the Defendant’s wife X and children, the remaining designated parties, and the Plaintiff W jointly succeeded to the proceedings.

'the plaintiff's 'the plaintiff's 'the plaintiff's 'the plaintiff's 'the plaintiff's -

2. The additionally added Plaintiffs asserted that, on the grounds of the grounds of appeal, Defendant C, by acquiring ownership of the land from the network A on the ground of the efficiency of management of the land, Defendant C, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the cost of production and description to the network A.

The evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant Lee Jong-so agreed to pay the production and description cost to the defendant Lee Jong-so, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

Furthermore, in light of the fact that the descendants were voluntarily located on the part of the fleet, and there is no evidence to prove that the company that the deceased was made with the consent or approval of the defendant's species, the deceased left the fleet's agent and disbursed the expenses.

The sole reason for the fact that the defendant Sejong owned the above-mentioned land is that the plaintiffs are legally responsible for claiming the costs of the manufacture against the defendant Sejong.