1. The Defendants each of the attached Form No. B, in the whole city of the Plaintiff, falls under the category of the Defendant’s list.

1. Determination on both arguments

A. If parts of Gap 4, 6, 8 and 13 are added to the purport of the entire pleadings and witness C and some of witness C and D testimony, the plaintiff is obligated to perform the registration of ownership transfer for each of the following reasons: on September 18, 1971 to October 11, 1971, the transfer of shares in the EF joint name (one-half shares of co-ownership) was completed with respect to the farmland in this case on September 18, 1971 to October 11, 1971, the plaintiff entrusted the ownership of the land (hereinafter referred to as "the farmland in this case") under the title of E and F, and the E/F co-inheritors jointly inherited each of the above parts. Accordingly, the defendants are liable to the plaintiff to perform the registration of ownership transfer for each of the farmland in this case on September 18, 1971 to the E/F joint name (one-half shares of co-inheritors).

나. 이에 대하여 피고 7~17은, 무효인 종중 결의에 기초하여 제기된 이 사건 소가 부적법하다는 취지로 다투지만, 갑 8, 9, 13의 각 일부 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, 최근에 만들어진 원고의 규약(☞ 갑 8) 제8조 제1항에 명시된 ‘정기총회일(☞ 2019. 11. 6.)’에 출석 과반수의 찬성으로 이루어진 각종 추인결의에 따라 이 사건 제소 당시 완비되지 못했던 대표권한 등의 흠이 모두 보완된 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 이 점을 다투는 위 피고들의 주장은 모두 받아들일 수 없다.

2. According to the conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim for the performance of each of the instant claims for the transfer of ownership is accepted.