1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s protocol is the owner of the instant land. (A) In light of the Plaintiff’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s husband

B) AC, the address at the time of the adjudication on the neighboring land of this case in 1916, which was the name of the adjudication, is similar to “Yancheon-gun AA”, which is the address at the time of the assessment of the land of this case in 1915 by “Yancheon-do, Chungcheongnam-do, and, at the time of the assessment of the land of this case, G, the name of the adjudication, is similar to “Yancheon-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do.,” which is the address at the time of the assessment of the land of this case in 1915. This is consistent with “Yancheon-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do.,” and the Plaintiff’s father’s husband’s father’s husband’s wife’s husband’s wife’s wife’s domicile at the time of his appointment as the tax assistant on September 30, 1907, which was the domicile at the time of his appointment as the tax assistant on September 30, 1907.

According to this, the plaintiff's assistance G, Korea's control group G, and situation-based G are all the same persons, and the plaintiff's assistance group G passed the tax injection examination by the Korean Tax Office on September 30, 1907 and was under circumstances at the time of his/her service as the YGun Seo-do YGun Seo-do Ygun-gun around 1915, it is deemed that the land of this case is the owner of the land of this case.

2 The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s lighting is not “AH” but “AH,” and the Plaintiff’s lighting is different from G, a person under the name of the circumstance.

However, according to the purport of the evidence No. 2-2 and the whole argument of the plaintiff, it is the plaintiff.