1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The defendant shall record the plaintiffs' real estate stated in the separate sheet No. 1 annexed hereto.

1. The reasoning for this part of the facts admitted by the court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. (1) The parties’ assertion (1) The land of this case is the same as the land indicated in the separate sheet, and the network K sold the land of this case to the network L on behalf of the network L. If, even if the network K’s power of representation is not recognized, the expressed representation under Article 126 of the Civil Code is established. Therefore, the sales contract of this case is valid, and the defendant, who is the heir of the network I, is obliged to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer of the land of this case to the plaintiffs, who are the heir of the

(2) In the sales contract (No. 3) regarding the land of this case, the real estate subject to sale is merely indicated as “200 square meters above the upper part of the entire land within the J of Jeonyang-gun, Jeonyang-gun, and thus, it is difficult to view the land of this case as identical to the land indicated in the attached Form.

In addition, the land before the instant partition was owned by the network I, not the network K, and the network K did not have the power to represent the disposal of the land before the instant partition. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

B. (1) On April 6, 1989, the court below determined that the land of this case and the annexed sheet were identical to the land of this case, namely, the circumstances where the purport of the entire pleadings can be seen from the above macroscopic evidence, namely, ① the network K prepared a trade certificate with the network L on April 6, 1989, and specified the land of this case as “200 square meters north from the J of the Duyang-gun.” Of the land before the division of this case, 200 square meters away from the north, and the remainder seems to have been used as a dry field and reached the form and quality of the land. ② On December 6, 1994, the plaintiff A filed an application for subdivision of the land before the division of this case, and on December 7, 1994, the land before the division of this case was divided into 1,336 square meters and the land attached hereto, and at the time of the survey by the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the I.K.