1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant is among the plaintiffs' 640 square meters prior to E, F-road 337 square meters, and 230 square meters prior to G.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except that the Plaintiff’s portion of “the Plaintiff’s property according to the statutory share of inheritance” as “the Plaintiff and the other Plaintiffs, who were married to the Plaintiff, the heading heir, are considered as “the property of AA according to the shares of inheritance indicated in the attached list,” and thus, this part is cited pursuant to the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiffs asserted that, after the registration for the recovery of loss was completed with respect to the land prior to the division of this case by the plaintiffs whose father was A, the registration for the preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was completed with respect to the land of this case divided from the above land. Thus, the registration for the preservation of ownership in the name of the defendant was filed with respect to the land of this case, and the defendant is obliged to perform the registration procedure for the cancellation of ownership preservation to the plaintiffs who

As to this, the Defendant asserted that the registration for the recovery of loss on the land prior to the instant partition was based only on the ownership certification at the head of Si/Eup/Myeon, and that it is difficult to recognize the legal presumption of right.

B. It is indicated that the date of receipt or receipt number of the former registration is obscure in the decision-making scambling, the registration of recovery.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the certificate of completion of registration required to be attached to the application for recovery registration, or the official document certifying rights, such as a copy or abstract of the register, the land, or a copy of the house register, which is immediately before the destruction, has not been attached to the application for recovery registration, and if the registration of recovery was entered in the register, it is reasonable to presume that it was legally accepted and disposed of by the registry official unless there are any particular circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 90Meu18637, Nov. 27, 1990). Each registration of preservation of ownership made for the same real estate is insufficient to list that real estate.