1. The part concerning the conjunctive claim in the first instance judgment shall be revoked.

2. The Defendant is not a party to the Plaintiff, who is not a party to the Plaintiff, but a party to the Plaintiff.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court of first instance is as follows, except where the plaintiff added "a determination on the conjunctive claim" as to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or added in this court, and thus, it is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is

(A) The court of first instance is justifiable in finding facts and determining whether a preliminary claim is made on December 27, 2018, since it is difficult for the plaintiff to resolve the cadastral deficiencies in the land of this case within the nearest time, even based on the data attached to the statement of reasons for appeal of December 27, 2018.

A. The first argument of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff has a claim for ownership transfer registration based on the completion of the statute of limitation on May 23, 2010 with respect to the part of the instant land against D, and D has completed the registration of ownership transfer with knowledge that it is obligated to perform such obligation to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant also actively participated in and completed the registration. Therefore, the registration in the name of the Defendant is an invalidation registration based on anti-social order juristic act. Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks implementation of the procedure for cancellation registration of ownership transfer registration of the instant land on November 13, 2001 with respect to the instant land by subrogation of D. 2) The second argument is based on a judgment against the deceased and constitutes invalidation of the cause. Since D and the Defendant’s respective registrations are invalid, the registration of the Defendant must be revoked.

B. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration based on the completion of the statute of limitations on May 23, 2010 regarding part of the instant land on the first argument of the judgment on the first argument is examined.

However, only the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is that D is obligated to register ownership of part of the instant land to the Plaintiff.