All appeals filed by the defendant against the plaintiffs A's litigant and the rest of the plaintiffs are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be the expenses for appeal.

1. The grounds for the court’s explanation concerning this case, including the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance, shall be amended to “the first instance court” with the 8th of the judgment of the court of first instance, and except to supplement or add the judgment as stated in the following 2, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplement and addition of judgments;

A. The Defendant asserts that, around 1910 years after the situation of the mother land of this case, it is difficult to ascertain whether the Plaintiffs’ shipbuilding S was alive, and even if S were alive, it is difficult to view that O and the Plaintiffs’ shipbuilding S were owned under the socially accepted norm due to the very old age at the time, and thus, it cannot be seen as the same person.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 3 and 20, the plaintiffs' shipbuilding S, who were born AB and died on May 10, 1932, can be acknowledged as a survival at around 1910 when the mother land of this case was determined. Meanwhile, solely on the circumstance that S was lower at the time of the situation of the mother land of this case, it cannot be deemed that theO and the plaintiffs' shipbuilding S, who were registered as the name holder of the assessment of the mother land of this case in the Land Survey Division, were not the same.

The defendant's argument is without merit.

B. In addition, the Defendant asserts that the extinctive prescription of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of unjust enrichment on the first real estate of this case has expired since the ratification of an unentitled person’s disposal act becomes retroactively effective at the time of contract pursuant to the main sentence of Article 133 of the Civil Act, such as the ratification of unauthorized Representation, and thus, the extinctive prescription takes effect from the time of disposal. The instant lawsuit was filed on May 16, 2014, when the Defendant sold the first real estate of this case to W on June 3, 2008.

However, even if there is a retroactive effect on ratification, the right, the validity of which has become final and conclusive by ratification, can not be exercised unless there is ratification.