1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiffs citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted to this court was presented

Therefore, the reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows. The argument that the plaintiffs emphasized in this court is added to the argument that is emphasized by this court is as set forth in paragraph (3) above. Thus, the reasoning for this court’s explanation is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance, which was accepted, shall be determined by the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Transfer of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 3562 of April 3, 1982).

According to the 9th judgment of the first instance, the first to the last 10 pages are as follows.

A person shall be appointed.

D. Where registration of preservation of ownership was made in accordance with the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate to judge the claim against the defendant Gwangju City, the person who was assessed on such forest

Even if the registration is made in the name of another person prior to the forestry register or the land cadastre, such registration shall be presumed to have been completed in accordance with the lawful procedures prescribed in the above Act and in accordance with the substantive legal relationship. Therefore, a person who intends to file a lawsuit for cancellation of registration of preservation of ownership completed under the above Act was the title holder of the registration of preservation of ownership prepared or forged a false guarantee certificate and confirmation document prescribed in the above Act.

for any other reason that the registration of preservation was not lawfully made, and that such registration was not made for such other reason must be proved.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da8965, Jun. 23, 1992). In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant Gwangju City’s return to the instant case and attached Table 1 to the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Real Estate Ownership.