1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against Defendant AU shall be revoked.

2. Defendant AU is the Plaintiff of Daejeon-dong-gu AI 401.7 square meters.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 18, 2015, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the transfer of co-ownership with respect to the share of 42/475 in the instant land from the former owner BA, and thereafter owned the building located in the part of the instant “bb” land from around that time. As such, the Plaintiff occupied the part of the instant “b” land.

B. Regarding the instant land, Defendant AJ, AK, AL, AM, N, AO, AP, AP, Q and the co-defendants of the first instance trial, Korea, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, K, M, N,O, P, net AV, net AW, network AW, network AY, network AY, and network AD, each co-defendants of the corresponding shares listed in attached Table 2 are completed.

C. Meanwhile, Defendant AR and AS are the successors of the above registered titleholder AV, Defendant AU and the co-defendant Y, Z, AA, AB, and AC are the successors of the above registered titleholder BB, and Defendant AT and the co-defendant X of the first instance trial are the successors of the above registered titleholder AY.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole argument

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant AU and judgment as to the remaining 11 defendants' primary claim

A. At the time of the war in the Dong-gu Daejeon District of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the refugees in South Korea were living in the land owned by the State. However, the co-defendants of the first instance court, while the co-defendants of the Republic of Korea specified the location and size of each land to those residing in the land owned by him/her (hereinafter “previous land”), they completed the registration of ownership transfer with co-ownership of the entire land for the convenience of registration, and the persons who completed the registration of ownership transfer had completed the registration of ownership again to the subsequent buyers.

The plaintiff is divided by specifying the part of the "b" land in this case, and the plaintiff and the defendants are in a mutual title trust relationship with respect to the part of the "b" land in this case.

On April 2, 2018, the Plaintiff terminated the mutual title trust relationship with the Defendants by serving the application for modification of the purport of the claim on the Defendants.

Therefore, it is true.