1. The part of the first instance judgment against the Defendants shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants each.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 10, 1912, AF was under the assessment of 1,630 square meters prior to the AG in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On November 24, 1951, AF was inherited the instant real estate by the Republic of Korea, the Republic of Korea, a South-North Korean Family Court (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

AJ died on December 6, 199 and died on December 6, 199, and there was AM, Qu, AO, AP, U, V, and Defendant W. However, AM died on April 5, 1986 and died on April 5, 1986, and thus Defendant G, Defendant H, Defendant H, Defendant I J, Defendant K, Defendant L, Defendant L, and Defendant M died on April 4, 1991, and thereby jointly owned shares in the first instance trial, N, DefendantO, and the first instance trial co-defendant P, who were their children, respectively inherited shares in the instant real estate, and AM died on January 9, 201, and CO died on January 9, 201.

AP died on August 6, 1945, and there was no inheritor.

B. Y was adopted on April 26, 1949 by AC, and died on March 27, 2007, and the Plaintiffs were their successors.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 5 (including virtual numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On July 9, 2017, when Defendant I and Defendant K, as co-defendant F of the first instance trial, had been aware of the fact that the instant lawsuit had been pending on July 9, 2017, when Defendant F, his mother, was served with the instant complaint. Moreover, the fact that the judgment was rendered on June 4, 2018 by Co-Defendant F, Defendant F, who was Defendant F, was served with the instant complaint should be deemed to have been known. In addition, Defendant Qu also should be deemed to have been aware of the fact and the fact of the judgment that the instant case was pending at the time when Defendant V, who was the birth, was served with the complaint and the written judgment. Accordingly, Defendant Qu, as well, asserts to the purport that the subsequent appeal by Defendant I, Defendant K, and Defendant Q is unlawful.

The article 173(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "A party may not be held liable for any reason that is not attributable to the party."