1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim as to the cancellation is dismissed.

2...

1. The judgment of the court of first instance on the scope of the judgment in this Court: ① dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of each registration of ownership transfer as to the land listed in [Attachment 1] List 1, 3 through 6, and ② accept the claim for cancellation registration of ownership transfer as to the land listed in Annex 2 List 2, and ③ dismiss the Plaintiff’s claim as to codefendant Mosan, No. 1, No. 2, and B.

However, the Plaintiff did not appeal against the judgment of the first instance court, but only the Defendant appealed.

Therefore, among the judgment of the court of first instance, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was separated and finalized, and the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was separated and finalized. ② The part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant, i.e., the part of the claim against the Defendant was transferred to this court, but is not subject to the judgment of the court, and (2) the part of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant (hereinafter “claim against this part”).

2. The reasons why this Court has used this part of the basic facts are as stated in the judgment of the first instance court, except for using “Defendant Republic of Korea” as “Defendant”, “Defendant Trup group”, “Defendant W” and “Defendant B” in “1. Recognition” in the judgment of the first instance court, and as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance court. Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts as to the cause of the claim, K is the same as father D and the same person as the Plaintiff’s father D, and since the owner of the land of this case No. 2 before the registration of the Defendant’s name was completed, it does not constitute the property devolving upon the State under the Act on the Disposal of Property Belonging.

Therefore, the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant (hereinafter “the registration of transfer of ownership of this case”) completed on December 29, 1978 by Cheongju District Court No. 8398 received on December 29, 1978 is null and void, and the defendant has no special circumstance.