1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The Court is selected as an alternative.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the determination as to the selective claims added in the trial by dismissal or addition as follows, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

【In the case of dismissal or addition, the following parts shall be added to the 6th sentence of the first instance court.”

In the case of a title trust of real estate, the ownership externally belongs to the trustee, and when the trustee disposes of the entrusted real estate to a third party, the third acquisitor has lawfully acquired the ownership of the trust property and extinguished the title trust relationship (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da18634, Jun. 8, 1993), and the third part of the judgment of the first instance court in the third part of the judgment of the first instance is as follows.

The expression of intent to terminate a mutual title trust is implicitly possible (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da32992 Decided June 26, 2008). At the time, the following parts are added to the sixth Chapter 4 of the first instance judgment of "Korea by the decision to recommend reconciliation in which all co-owners of the forest of this case were the parties."

"Therefore, even if the plaintiff et al. specified and purchased the site of this case from the Republic of Korea on November 17, 2016 after the termination of sectional ownership sharing relationship, if there is no agreement among co-owners on the intention to exclusively vest a specific part among co-owners, it is not possible to establish a sectional ownership sharing relationship (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da71409 Decided April 29, 2005). The specific part between the other co-owners and each co-owner at the time of the purchase.