1. All appeals by the defendant against the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, such as accepting the judgment, is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (excluding “3. conclusion,” and including the attached Form), except to supplement or add the judgment as follows 2. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 4

2. The supplementary and additional defendant asserts that since the deceased operates a personal enterprise, including AA and AB, from 1984 to 2003, and filed a comprehensive income tax with the National Tax Service, it cannot be determined that the deceased is incapable of acquiring the land of this case. Since there is no specific evidence or proof that the plaintiff paid the acquisition price of the land of this case, it is against the presumption of real estate registration that the actual owner of the land of this case recognized the plaintiff A.

In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 9, 19 through 32, 35, 36, 37, and 40 and the entire purport of oral pleadings, it is reasonable to view that the source of the funds to acquire the land of this case was the plaintiff A who had been engaged in various businesses at the time of the acquisition of the land of this case, and the plaintiff A was entitled to gain profits after the acquisition of the land of this case, and that it was controlled and managed as the actual owner of the land of this case.

The defendant's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

Plaintiff

A, after having served in the Vietnam War War in 1968, returned to the United States, and had started to deal with precious metals from around that time, and began to provide gold banks to Pyeongtaek as the US military transferred to Pyeongtaek.

After that, from 1974 to 1979, Plaintiff A operated AC and AD gas stations as a partnership business, and operated a soil product sales business (AF) in Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government AE underground store.

In addition, the plaintiff A around 1980, Jung-gu Seoul.