The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. The plaintiff's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the plaintiff's assertion in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted to this court is added to the evidence submitted

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows: (a) the supplementary judgment of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for adding supplementary judgment to the Plaintiff’s assertion; and (b) the same is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the first-class judgment.

subsection (1) of this section shall be as follows:

There is no evidence to verify the exact shares of 1/4 of the instant forest land among the 2nd 9th 2th Y, 4th 8th Y, 4th 8th YY, 1th 6th 6th YY, 1th 6th YYY, YYYY, NYYYYY, NYYYYYY, NYYYYYYY, and 1/4th YY

[A’s certificate of closure of each forest of this case (No. 3’s certificate No. 1, 2, and 3) is not indicated in F’s certificate of ownership. However, in the judgment of the relevant case (No. 5, 8 pages No. 2), each registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Non-Party Q, which is the cause of the text of December 4, 1929 with respect to each forest of this case, 3/4 of each of the forest of this case among the forest of this case on the same day, each registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Non-Party Q, which is the cause of non-party net F, the same network R, and the same network S joint names respectively.

In light of the content stated, the registration of ownership transfer seems to have been completed in F with respect to shares of 1/4 of each forest of this case among forest of this case.

In this regard, the Plaintiff calculated his share, a heir of F, on the premise that the ownership transfer registration has been completed in F in the future with respect to 1/3 of the forest of this case.

On December 4, 1929, the transfer registration of ownership was completed in the FF.

“”

B. The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance is 13 and 14, “20 10 YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 20 YYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY 20 Y