1. The part against Defendant B and C in the judgment of the first instance and the part against Defendant D, respectively, shall be revoked, and the part against Defendant B and C shall be revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows. Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer of the deceased’s share transfer on September 6, 1996 with respect to the Namwon-si M, L, N,O, and P (hereinafter “instant donated real estate”) whose ownership was registered as the ownership, on October 30, 1996, for sale and purchase as of September 6, 1996. Of the instant donated real estate, Q& land which was merged with the land of Yongwon-si, Nam-si due to the merger on March 31, 2014, among the instant donated real estate, was completed on April 12, 1950, and on the remainder, the ownership transfer registration was completed in the future of September 6, 1996. Meanwhile, Defendant B added the ownership transfer registration of the deceased’s share to the instant donated real estate on September 4, 1996 [the part of the instant donated real estate, other than Qwon-si, as seen thereafter, as the ground for termination of the judgment of Defendant B’s No. 214.

2. The assertion;

A. Defendant B completed the registration of transfer of ownership of this case under the Act on Special Measures for the Promotion of Ownership, since Defendant B did not purchase each of the instant real property from the Deceased, the registration of transfer of ownership is null and void.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to cancel the registration of ownership transfer of this case with respect to each real estate of this case, and Defendant C is obligated to cancel the registration of ownership transfer of this case based on the registration of ownership transfer of this case. Defendant C, who is the person holding the provisional seizure of this case, is obligated to express his consent with respect to the registration of cancellation of ownership transfer of this case.

(2) The defendants of the first instance court appealed from the part against Defendant B, C, and D, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion is limited to the scope of the judgment of this court prior to this court).