1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant bears the total costs of the lawsuit after the filing of the appeal.

3. The first instance.

1. The court of first instance accepted the Plaintiff’s claim after remanding the case. However, the appellate court prior to remanding the case, cited the part demanding the implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of this case (hereinafter “the part demanding the cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of this case”) and rejected the remaining lawsuit. The Plaintiff appealed and the Supreme Court rendered a judgment that reversed and remanded the part of the judgment before remanding the case. The fact that the Plaintiff sought implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of this case as to the 63/10 of the land of this case, including the 6/100 of the land of this case, including the above 84 shares at the trial after remanding the case is obvious in the records.

Therefore, since the part in favor of the Plaintiff in favor of the Plaintiff before the remand except the above incineration part was finalized simultaneously with the pronouncement of the judgment of reversal and return, the subject of the judgment after remand is limited to the remaining part excluding the part in favor of the Plaintiff in favor of the Plaintiff in the judgment before the remand of the case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da67971, Jan. 11, 2007). 2.

A. History 1 of the instant land was partitioned from E, E, 60 to January 15, 1946 at the time of subdivision, and the land category was changed from February 6, 1946 to site. The instant land was registered on the land cadastre “land subject to correction of registered matters” along with F and G land adjacent to both sides of May 9, 1995. Upon the appraiser H’s appraisal of the first instance trial, it was confirmed on November 7, 201 that the said “land subject to correction of registered matters” as to the said three lots of land was erroneously registered, and deleted the said statement. From December 24, 1935, 1935, before subdivision, the ownership transfer registration of the instant land was completed. The Defendant owned the instant land under the name of J as of June 25, 2008.