1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

The reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows, and the reasoning for this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion in addition to the following cases. Thus, this is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of

Additional Determinations

A. The plaintiff asserted that the claim against the defendant B is about 3/4 of the real estate of this case, and that the cause of the claim is also about F and other co-inheritors' inherited property rights, and that the subject matter of the lawsuit differs depending on the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim different from that of the previous lawsuit, so it does not conflict with the res judicata of the previous

The subject matter of the claim for cancellation registration is the claim for cancellation registration in question, and the cause of the claim, which is the standard for its identity identification, that is, the cause of the claim for cancellation registration, is the invalidity of the cause of the registration in question, and individual grounds supporting the invalidity of the cause of registration are independent means of attack and defense, so it cannot be viewed that separate causes of claim are constituted.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 93Da11050 delivered on June 29, 1993, 97Da54024 delivered on September 17, 1999, and 97Da54024 delivered on September 17, 199). Of the judgment in the previous suit and the lawsuit in this case, all claims against Defendant B against the instant real estate seek cancellation of the ownership transfer registration made on December 15, 1975. The subject matter of the lawsuit is the same as the right to claim cancellation of the above registration (the subject matter of the lawsuit is identical as the right to claim cancellation of some shares, but there is no reason to deem otherwise), and the grounds asserted by the Plaintiff is merely an independent means of attack and defense, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the cause of

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that Defendant B’s possession is a malicious or negligent possession, as he knew or could have known all the existence of the deceased’s minor inheritors, such as E, in addition to E at the time of purchase of the instant real estate and transfer registration.

Defendant B shall in good faith take place.