1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The plaintiff A's conjunctive claim added by this court is dismissed.

3.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning the instant case is as stated in the part against the plaintiffs in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following additional determination as to the plaintiff's assertion and conjunctive claim, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Judgment on Plaintiff A’s assertion and ancillary claim

A. As to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff asserted that the non-existence of the donation agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any part written by the Plaintiff A in the donation agreement (Evidence A-1 of No. 7), and that the name of the head of Yangyang-gun is not stated as the other party to the donation. As seen in the first instance court, insofar as the Plaintiff’s stamp image on the Plaintiff’s name is recognized as the above Plaintiff, the entire authenticity of the donation agreement is recognized, and the content thereof is not different even if the Plaintiff did not state it. Furthermore, in the written document of donation, it is sufficient that the Plaintiff was written to the extent that the donor’s intent to give his own property to the other party was clearly known through the document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2634, Sept. 27, 198), and the Plaintiff’s intent to use the pertinent land was written by the Plaintiff as the witness on the donation agreement, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s intent to use the above land was insufficient.