1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. As to the Plaintiff, 5,795 square meters of forest E-Gun, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun:

A. Defendant B’s share 1/2.

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a clan consisting of male and female descendants who are the descendants of the 21-year old descendants of A (JJ) and the defendants are the clan members.

B. N, Defendant B’s additional records, was assessed on the 66,446 square meters of forest E in 1918 (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”).

C. On October 11, 1938, N completed the registration of initial ownership of the land before the instant subdivision, and on the same day, N completed the registration of initial ownership on the grounds of sale on September 1, 1938, for O, grandchildren P, Plaintiff clan 24 years old, Plaintiff clan Q, Plaintiff clan 25 years old, Defendant clan R, S, and T, each of 1/6 shares.

U and Defendant B completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on January 1, 1975, with respect to the land prior to the instant partition on March 29, 1994, by 1/2 equity shares under the Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate (Act No. 4502, hereinafter “Special Measures Act”).

E. On March 23, 1998, the registration of ownership transfer was completed on March 19, 198 on the part of U 1/2 of U 1/2 of the land before the partition of this case, with 1/6 shares each in the name of Defendant C, V, and W, respectively.

F. Meanwhile, on the other hand, on December 18, 1998, the land before the instant subdivision was divided into F forest land 2,795 square meters and G forest land 7,856 square meters, respectively, and E forest land 55,795 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”). The land category F and G land was changed to each road on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The special meeting in which U and D argued by the Defendants were elected as the representative of the Plaintiff clan is invalid due to the defect in convening procedures. U and D elected at the special general meeting of invalidation are unlawful in the lawsuit of this case brought by a person without the power of representation, who is not a legitimate representative of the Plaintiff clan.

B. As to the preservation of one collective ownership, the provisions of Article 265 of the Civil Act concerning the preservation of joint ownership cannot be applied, and unless there are special circumstances, Article 276(1) of the Civil Act shall not be applied.