1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

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

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the instant case, is the same as the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal or addition as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

2. The second part of the judgment of the court of first instance, “F with 15 years of age F, with her 15 years of age F, with her 15 years of age F, AS with her her children, and F with her her children, with 16 years of age G, with her her children.”

"Evidence 8, 9, 15, 31, 4 and 8 of Category 16 and 17 of the first instance judgment shall be written with "Evidence 8, 9, 15, 19 through 24, 26, 27, 31, 46, 53, 56, 52, 62, 88, 89 of Category 4, 8, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22 through 24 of the first instance judgment."

Part 4 of the first instance judgment "O. 5, 1935" shall be applied to "O. 2, 1971" in Part 19 of the fourth instance judgment.

The 5th to 18th of the first instance court's 6th of the first instance court's "not later than its transfer" shall be followed as follows.

The plaintiff did not submit objective evidence to the effect that he had previously existed the rules or articles of incorporation of the plaintiff, or that there was an executive body such as the chairperson elected in accordance with the rules or customs, and that the general meeting of clans had been held, which is an organic organization to the extent that he could acquire ownership to the land of this case and hold title trust to others (the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff was working for the plaintiff on January 1, 1978 on the ground of the evidence No. 8 (Rules) in the first instance court, but the above evidence No. 8 was established in this court, but the above evidence No. 8 was the defendant's rules, and the plaintiff was established in this court for the first time in 2015, and it was found that the plaintiff was a representative of the 15th "representative" in the first instance judgment of the first instance.

The following shall be added to the sixth 17th of the first instance judgment:

"나아가 원고는 1973년경 E 부도묘(不桃廟)를 중건할 당시 활동한 증거로 갑 제9호증(E부도묘중건기)을...