1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased I (JJ, death on February 15, 2001, hereinafter “the deceased”) is a name of the ownership transfer registration with respect to the land of 1028 square meters (hereinafter “the instant land”) prior to the Gosung-gun, Gangwon-gun, Gangwon-do.

B. On November 14, 1969, the deceased and the co-defendant B, C, and L (L was declared missing by this court as 2013 was declared missing on May 7, 194) of the first instance trial between K (the deceased on May 4, 1968) and the Defendant and the O (the deceased on October 1, 2003) were born.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 2 through 7, and 9 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. On the basis of the determination as to the cause of the claim, Gap evidence No. 1-1 (a sales contract, evidence and the purport of the whole arguments as shown below, it is recognized that Gap evidence No. 8-1, a co-defendant No. 1-2, a co-defendant No. 1-2, a representative of the deceased, prepared the above document, and the husband P, a co-defendant No. 1-2, a co-defendant No. 1-2, a co-defendant No. 1-2 (a copy and a certificate No. 8-1 (a certificate) of the above document, can be recognized as the authenticity of the above document. In full view of the overall purport of the statement and arguments of the receipt No. 8-1, it is presumed that the entire document's authenticity is presumed to be established according to the above facts. The defendant defense that this document was forged, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently). The above document is presumed to be identical to the document under the name of the head of Gwanak-gu Office, a public official or official.

The defendants defense that the above document was forged, but only the statement in Eul-B evidence 2 is the fact of the above assertion.