1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are recognized as legitimate even if the defendant presented evidence to the court of first instance additionally.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the judgment on the argument emphasized by the defendant in this court, and it is so accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's summary of the defendant's assertion asserts that the defendant's permanent domicile on the plaintiffs' Z land in U's preemptive certified copies is "Seoul-do Yangyang-gun AAi" while U's domicile, the circumstance of the land investigation injury, is "Seoul-do Yangyang-gun BNi", so the plaintiffs' prior domicile and the situation title holder cannot be deemed the same person.

B. Determination 1) However, in full view of the following circumstances revealed by Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 13 and by the fact-finding results and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the U and the land survey injury U are the same person. ① The land survey division was prepared between 1910 and 1918, and U’s domicile, the title of the injury to the said land survey was “Seoul-do Gyeyang-gun BN (hereinafter the Do’s name omitted).” However, on March 1, 1914, inasmuch as the administrative name was changed to “Tan area” and “BP area,” the above land survey division was virtually the same administrative district as “BO area,” and the above land survey division was prepared on or before March 1, 1914 as a copy of the land survey by the plaintiff’s 199 U.S. 14 and 194 U.S. director 196.