1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Of the 3,059 square meters of B forest land in e.g., each point in the attached Form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1.

1. Facts of recognition; and

2. Grounds for the court's explanation concerning this part of the claim by the plaintiff's branch of the family council

1. The facts of recognition;

In addition to the following cases, a claim shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same.

E. The plaintiff is a clan association consisting of the male and female wife, with T 30-year-old V, for the purpose of the protection of graves, religious services, and friendship among the family members.

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed from the fact of recognition as to whether the land of this case is included in the sale object, namely, ① the forest before the division of this case and the old cadastral map on the land before the boundary correction of this case clearly indicated that the part of this case was not included in the forest land before the division of this case or the land before the boundary correction. ② The part of this case was installed with the land of this case by AI (E, Q, AB-friendly money) by the 31-year-old members of the Plaintiff clan, and the Plaintiff clan managed the graves installed in the part of this case before the Defendant acquired the land before the boundary correction of this case; ③ the Defendant also asserted ownership as to the part of this case’s land before the boundary correction of this case or demanded the Plaintiff to remove the tomb, etc., it is reasonable to view that the part of this case’s land was not included in the sale object of this case’s land at the time of the transfer to the Defendant around June 14, 199.

After that, even if the cadastral map was revised around October 13, 2010 and the part of the instant land was incorporated into the land before the Defendant’s correction of the boundary, it is difficult to view that there is a separate agreement between F or the Plaintiff, the title truster, and the Defendant, to include the part of the instant land in the trade subject.