1. The part against the plaintiff among the judgment of the court of first instance (the part against the defendant D's rejection of the claim) shall be revoked.

2. Defendant D.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance (such as law, precedents, interpretation and application of legal principles, recognition of facts and facts requiring proof, determination of issues, etc.) is sufficiently reasonable as a result of determining issues in accordance with the appellate court’s methods and principles, laws, precedents, legal principles and rules of evidence based on the litigation materials and arguments submitted to the appellate court citing the court of first instance.

The reasons for this Court concerning this case are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and C, as stated in paragraph (3), with the exception of additional determination as to the matters alleged as the grounds for appeal by either the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and C as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance; and (b) the same shall be cited as it is, as they are, in accordance with the main sentence of

2. (a) On the 3rd part of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part in which it is used or deleted was cut to “91'43242” and “91'43.2.

(b) On the third and third sides of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff, “Plaintiffs”, “Plaintiffs,” shall be deemed “Plaintiffs, children,” respectively.

(c) Part 8 of the judgment of the first instance, Part 10 of the 8th instance, “VP 14-year-old Ba” was added to “V 14-year-old Ba (the clerical error in the “4-year-old Ba”)”.

(d) In Part 9 of the first instance judgment, “A” and “A” shall be deleted from Section 10 of the first instance judgment in Part I, South and North Korea J.I.D.

(e) No. 9 of the first instance judgment, the term “L’s children” was changed to “L’s children”.

(f) The 10th class 7th class 7 and 15th class 15 of the judgment of the first instance shall each read “L’s children” as “L’s children.”

3. Additional determination on the grounds for appeal

A. Defendant B and Nonparty C’s assertion that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Nonparty B is valid is a unique meaning of Nonparty B and Nonparty C’s assertion that the registration of preservation of ownership in the name of Nonparty C is a 4-year-old clan W, or at least a similar organization to a clan exists, and each of the instant lands is used as a VP 2 and 5-5 clans and its denial’s cemetery and memorial land in F’s name in order to use it as a tombtory, etc.

The non-party clan was newly registered in around 1994.