Of the claim against Defendant B, the judgment of the court below on the size of 470 square meters in Jeju-si is 470/60 of the portion indicated in the attached drawing(b) and 84 square meters.

1. We examine ex officio the appeal as to the share in the order among the claims against Defendant B relating to the legitimacy of the appeal.

A. In order to clarify the judgment of the court, the decision whether there is any omission of judgment because the conclusion is required to be entered in the text of the judgment shall be judged by the entry in the text. Thus, even if the grounds for judgment states that the request is groundless, it shall be deemed that there is omission of judgment unless there are special circumstances in the text, unless there are special circumstances. If there is any omission in judgment, the part of the lawsuit is still pending in the original judgment and thus it shall not be subject to appeal. Thus, the appeal on that part

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da43824 Decided May 27, 2005, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Da222666 Decided July 6, 2009, etc.) B.

According to the records and reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant Eul for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription against the defendant Eul, and against the defendant Eul for the cancellation of the ownership transfer registration on the land of this case that is transferred from the defendant Eul, on the ground that the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription is null and void. The court of first instance dismissed the plaintiff's claim against the defendants as to the share of 470/603 of the land of this case, and dismissed all the plaintiff's claim against the defendants as to the share of 13/603 of the transfer to the defendant Eul after the provisional disposition of prohibition of disposal was registered, and the plaintiff appealed against the plaintiff among the judgment of the court of first instance. The court below appealed against the plaintiff among the claims against the defendant Eul, on the ground that "if the defendant Eul completed the registration of ownership transfer, the obligation of the defendant Eul with respect to the above part became impossible to perform."