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

2. All of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants.

1. The reasoning for the court's explanation as to this case is as follows, except for the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance No. 6, No. 9 (B)'s assertion by the Defendants, and therefore it is identical to the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. (B) The previous land asserted by the Defendants was donated to the Plaintiff by the deceased J., and the Plaintiff, who received the above land from the Plaintiff by soliciting the Plaintiff to donate it to the same students, was completed the registration of transfer of ownership under the Act on Special Measures as if the Plaintiff purchased the above land from the Plaintiff for convenience. Thus, even if the presumption of the ownership transfer registration of this case is not reversed, the presumption of the ownership transfer registration of this case was not reversed, and even if Defendant B, D and deceased were to reverse the presumption of the ownership transfer registration of this case without fault in good faith, it shall be deemed that the acquisition by prescription or the acquisition by prescription of ownership was completed.

2) Determination A) Unless it is proven that a registration completed under the Act on Special Measures is presumed to be a registration consistent with the substantive legal relationship, and that a letter of guarantee or confirmation prescribed under the Act on Special Measures is false or forged, or that a registration is not legally registered due to other reasons, the presumption power of registration of ownership or registration of transfer is not reversed, and even if a person who completed registration under the Act on Special Measures claims that he/she acquired a right based on other grounds of acquisition even if he/she recognizes the fact different from the fact, it is obvious that the registration under the Act on Special Measures cannot be completed in his/her assertion itself or that the assertion is entirely not sufficient.

If it is apparent that it is an instrument by itself.