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.

1. The reasons for the acceptance by the court of first instance are as follows: (a) a new or additional statement is made as to the argument that the plaintiff adds to this court, except for the addition of the following “3. Additional determination”, and such a statement is as to the allegation, pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, it refers to the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. 고쳐 쓰거나 추가하는 부분 제1심 판결의 제2쪽 제13행 내지 제14행의 “망 H과 I가”를 “R에 주소지를 둔 망 H과 망 I가”로, 제1심판결의 제3쪽 제3행 중 “망 I”를 “조부(祖父)인 망 I”로 각 고쳐 쓴다.

Between 3rd and 5th of the judgment of the first instance, “The net I, which is the evidence of the plaintiff, shall be 12 years in comparison with 12 years in 1923.

7. 30. 30. The transfer of the forest register to Tae-gun, Gyeonggi-do, was made, and the domicile of the R, the assessment title of the forest survey report, at the domicile of I, the address of the Plaintiff, and the domicile of the deceased deceased I, the additional domicile of the Plaintiff, are consistent, and the Chinese name is identical.

In addition, “the Defendant” in the third and fifth instances of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “Defendant C, D”, “the Defendant” in the third and fifth instances of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “Defendant C, D,” and “the receipt” in the fourth and fourth instances of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed to be “donation”, respectively. The fourth and fifth instances of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be as follows: “I shall be deemed to be the same person as the Plaintiff’s domicile, permanent domicile, and Chinese name entered in the Plaintiff’s evidence I as well as the fact that there is another person residing in the same name as the Plaintiff’s evidence I and Chinese name within the administrative district as the Plaintiff’s evidence I and the circumstances of this case.

Therefore, the forest of this case is presumed to have been acquired originally by the Plaintiff as a title holder of assessment, and the forest of this case is deemed to have been acquired under the name of the deceased, and is about the land of this case completed under the name of the deceased.