1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendants exceeding the part ordering performance under paragraph 2 below shall be revoked.

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or may be found as a whole by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 8, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17 (including each number).

(1) On December 22, 1989, J died on December 22, 1989, the spouse K, South-Nam M, Ma, 3 South-Nam L, 4 South-N, P, 3 women G, 5 South-North Defendant E, 4 women Defendant H, and the spouse of Q, who died on December 26, 1985, was the co-inheritors and their children.

[Plaintiffs asserted that K made a confession before December 22, 1989, but it is recognized that K died on August 16, 1996, which is ex post facto of J as acknowledged in paragraph (3) below. Since it is reasonable to deem that the aforementioned confessions by the Defendants were in violation of the truth, it is reasonable to deem that the confessions were legally revoked by the Defendants’ declaration of revocation of the preparatory documents dated November 3, 201, and the Plaintiffs asserted that the date of death of K differs, or that the date is 194 after the death of J, and therefore there is no dispute as to the existence of K at the time of the death of the J. (2) L became the Plaintiff and children of the Plaintiff, Plaintiff D, C, and C, and its heir, who are his spouse, and the remaining co-inheritors of the Defendant M&M.

(3) On the other hand, after the birth of Ma with J, K opened the family register, and completed the marriage report with AI on April 10, 1936 (Death on September 23, 1984) and as a result, K died on August 16, 1996 and became co-inheritors by M, AJ, and AK.

B. On May 29, 192, the registration of ownership transfer is made under the name of Defendant E on May 29, 192, with respect to each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the network J (hereinafter “instant land”).