1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant Republic of Korea and the defendant B's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The appeal costs.

1. The reasons why this Court is stated in this part of the underlying facts are the same as that of “1. Basic Facts” in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, if it excludes the following parts, and thus, they are included in summary in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

A. 2 to 5 (Article 1.(1.(2)) of the Act on the Protection, Protection, and Protection, etc. of Family Members (hereinafter referred to as "G, etc.") are as follows:

(2) The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the instant clan seeking cancellation of the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of the same clan (U.S. District Court Decision 2011Gahap1479, hereinafter referred to as “the case subject to quasi-deliberation”) that had been closed on the instant clan.

At that time, F, on January 18, 2012, filed a claim with G, etc., which was the representative of the instant clan. At that time, F, a written recognition and recognition protocol stating such purport on the same day (hereinafter “written recognition and recognition protocol of the instant clan”).

(C) Nos. 3, 6 of the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, "No. 19, 2012" has been drawn up to " June 29, 2012".

The registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage in the 3rd page 11 of the 11st unit of the 5th unit of the 3st unit of the 5th unit of the 11st unit of the 3st unit of the mortgage.

The "land of this case" of 19 on the same page as that of 3rd and 12 shall be added to each "share of this case".

On the 3rd page 1, 20 pages 3, and 20 below, all "Defendant Pyeongtaek-si" shall be added to "Co-Defendant Pyeongtaek-si in the first instance."

⒡ 제4면 제4~18행(목차 “1.다.”항 부분)을 아래와 같이 고쳐 쓴다.

C. On July 11, 2012, the clan of this case sought the revocation of the protocol of recognition of this case and the revocation of the claim of G, etc. against G, etc. on the ground that “A F, without any special authorization, accepted the claim of G, etc. in the case subject to quasi-deliberation” against G, etc., and at the same time, sought the revocation of the protocol of recognition of this case and the claim for the cancellation of ownership transfer registration against G, etc. in the case subject to quasi-deliberation.