1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant and the conjunctive claims filed by the plaintiff in this court are dismissed.

2...

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this part of the basic facts is as follows, except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance (see, e.g., “1. recognized facts”).

[Supplementary or additional parts] Under 2, the term “the deceased A” (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) shall be read as “the deceased A (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”)” in 1926.

Under the two sides, the Plaintiff solely inherited the deceased’s property on November 29, 2014, “F shall be deemed to have died on September 5, 2012, and the deceased died on November 29, 2014.”

3. The following shall be added "(hereinafter referred to as the "instant real estate") to "Seoul Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Large 75.4 square meters."

3 The following is added to “The amount of KRW 470,00,000,000,000,000,000 shall be paid by the Plaintiff upon the Plaintiff’s receipt of the instant interest-free loans and additional contributions to members of the deceased, and the remainder shall be kept).”

2. Whether the Plaintiff constitutes a sole heir as the adopted child of the Deceased

A. On December 14, 1956, F (1919) married with K and was in sleeped by the Defendant (1955), D (1958), and E (1961) after the divorce with K, F and the Deceased on January 4, 1969.

3) On May 6, 1980, F reported the Plaintiff (the 1977 birth), who is one’s interlock, as a child born during the marriage with the Deceased. Since then, the Plaintiff was her mother, and the Deceased brought up the Deceased as his/her father as his/her father. After the Deceased’s death, the Plaintiff became aware of the fact that the Deceased was not his/her father’s mother after the Deceased’s death. [The Plaintiff did not have any dispute over the grounds for recognition, evidence Nos. 2, and evidence No. 8, as a whole,

B. If the plaintiff and the deceased have reported the birth of their natural father with their intention of adoption, and if the "actual requirements for adoption" have been satisfied, it is somewhat erroneous in its form.