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 reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows. The court's explanation of this case is that evidence submitted in the trial and rejected each description and image of Eul's evidence Nos. 2 through 5 (including each number) which are insufficient to recognize the defendants' assertion, and "Witness" among the grounds of the judgment of the court of the first instance is "Witness of the first instance", "this court" is "the first instance court", and "this court" is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for dismissal or addition as follows. Thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be removed or added;

A. The 3rd part of the judgment of the court of first instance “the result of the fact inquiry” in the 17th part of the 17th part of the judgment shall be deemed “the result of the fact inquiry,” and “the result of the

B. The following is added following the fourth and second written judgment of the court of first instance.

The Defendants have known that the act of selecting the ex post facto breeder was invalid in violation of the former custom at the time he was selected as the ex post facto breeder, and therefore, the possession of the net K constitutes the possession of the other State, and the possession of M inherited from the former constitutes the possession of the other State.

However, the evidence submitted by the Defendants alone is insufficient to recognize that it was known that the act of selection was null and void at the time the network K was selected as an ex post facto adoption, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following circumstances that can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of No. 2, the witness M’s testimony and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the fact that the deceased K was selected as a post-help by the N council and was accordingly registered in the family register. In the case that there is no male who will succeed to the family register and the estate of a female family, and that the family register and the estate inherited to the female head of a family will be succeeded to the post-support of the family register, and that the family register and the estate inherited to the female head of a family would be succeeded to the post-support of the family register. Therefore, the deceased K would be a miscarriage because it was designated as the post-support of the deceased.