1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. Basic facts

A. The land listed in the attached Table’s real estate list (hereinafter “instant land”) was assessed against R around 1914, the Japanese colonial occupation period, and its ownership was transferred to P and one other on July 7, 1937.

B. On July 7, 1937, the land cadastre of the instant case (hereinafter “instant land cadastre”) was transferred to “P and one other,” and the registration number was written as “S,” respectively, and the registration number of the instant land cadastre was changed to “T” around December 28, 1994.

C. The co-ownership delay list attached to the instant land cadastre is unexpliced, and there is no other personal information on other co-owners than P.D.

P andO are the clan relationship of U clan, P's resident registration number is "T", and P's resident registration number is "S".

E.O died on May 15, 197, and the Plaintiffs are the persons of the networkO.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including branch numbers if there are various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and fact-finding with respect to the Incheon market by the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The reasoning of this court concerning this part of the judgment on the defendant's main defense is as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance (Article 1 of the judgment). Thus, this part of the judgment is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The plaintiffs asserted that the deceased O, his father, acquired ownership of the 1/2 shares out of the land of this case in around 1937, and that as the deceased O died in around 1977, the plaintiffs inherited the shares and owned them as the shares indicated in the separate inheritance shares, and that each of the shares indicated in the separate inheritance shares among the land of this case against the defendant is confirmed as owned by the plaintiffs.

4. Determination Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 8 and testimony No. V by the witness witness of the party in question alone is about 1.0 of the land of this case around 1937.