1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. On the basis of the selective claims added in the trial room, the Defendants shall be the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be acknowledged with Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 3-2, Gap evidence 5, 9, 10, Gap evidence 12, and testimony by U witness of the trial court as a whole.

The Plaintiff Siber L and the father M of the Defendants completed the registration of the land in this case by the Gwangju District Court No. 138 of January 18, 1967, which was due to the sale on October 17, 1966.

However, L and M engaged in the business together.

there is no fact that the partnership has been formed for a joint project.

B. L died on June 13, 1989, and M died on August 13, 1995.

The Defendants, among M’s inheritors, died of only one of the co-owners of the instant land, and subsequently completed a joint registration of the instant land based on inheritance by agreement division under the title of the Gwangju District Court No. 229758, Dec. 14, 2009, on the ground that M was deceased as a remaining co-owner of the instant land.

C. L’s property was jointly inherited by R, N and U, the wife’s children, and thereafter, the R died, and the N and U jointly inherited the R’s property.

N died on October 6, 1998, and his property was jointly inherited by the Plaintiff, his child, and the V, W, and X, who is the wife.

around March 2012, the Plaintiff, U,V, W, and X agreed to divide the inherited property with the content that they will transfer all rights, such as inheritance shares, etc., to the Plaintiff due to L’s death.

(hereinafter “this case’s agreement on division of inherited property”) 2.2. As the registration of transfer of ownership was completed on L and M’s joint ownership with respect to the land of this case, the land of this case is presumed to be a combination of L and M.

However, L and M engaged in the business together.

As seen earlier, there is no fact of forming an association for a joint business or for a joint business, and according to the statements in Gap evidence 6-1 through 9, and Eul evidence 1-1 through 5, L’s inheritors correspond to 1/2 of the land area of this case.