The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claims against the defendant (appointed party) and appointed parties, and the defendant are all filed.

In fact, on June 1914, PPJ (hereinafter “ Q”) completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of 11 paper members around 1926, under the circumstances of each land listed in [Attachment] Nos. 1 and 3 (hereinafter “L, N land,” and “each land of this case”) listed in [Attachment] List Nos. 1 and 1 and 3 of the Real Estate List.

On August 13, 1981, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of M&M in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (hereinafter referred to as the "Special Measures Act") on January 5, 1960 on each land of this case.

On August 26, 2015, an indictment of all-round Seoul District Court for the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “registration of transfer in the name of the Plaintiff”) was completed as of August 26, 2015.

The network K owned a building listed in the attached Table No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as “L building”) on L land, and Defendant B and the designated parties inherited the above building after the death of the network K.

Defendant C is the owner of a building listed in attached Table No. 4 (hereinafter referred to as “N building”) on the N land, and the ownership of L and each of the instant buildings.

【In the absence of dispute, the reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the judgment as to the main defense of Defendant B and the designated parties, as stated in the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 11-2, and the entire purport of the pleading, is the same as that of the second and fifth claims No. 15 of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The gist of the plaintiff's assertion on the merits is that the plaintiff is the owner of each land of this case.

The defendant B and the designated parties, the owner of LA, did not assert that they have a legitimate title to occupy and use LA land, they remove the above building according to their inheritance shares, deliver the above land, and deliver the land to the plaintiff.