1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.

2...

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion and the conjunctive claim added by the plaintiff in this court, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

(However, the part between the Plaintiff, Co-Defendant B and C is excluded). 2. Additional determination

A. On October and November 1970, the Plaintiff asserted that the first instance court withdrawn the part that purchased each of the instant real estate, which was alleged in the first instance court, and that each of the instant real estate was presumed to have been acquired before October 1614, which was presumed to have been acquired before the death of P, and that the Plaintiff was under the name of M & H N at the time of the completion of the instant real estate in around 1952, and that the title trust of the instant real estate was made to H around October and November 1970.

In addition to Gap 52 evidence submitted by the plaintiff in this court, the first instance judgment is legitimate, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the acquisition by prescription was completed as of January 30, 2018, which was the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint, since the Plaintiff, who entrusted the management of property to C, occupied each of the instant real estate in peace and openly for not less than 20 years as the intention to own the instant real estate by entrusting C with the management of his/her property.

However, the evidence presented by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff possessed each real estate of this case for 20 years, and there is no other evidence to recognize this otherwise. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims against the defendants should be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the court of first instance, which dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration due to the termination of title trust, is justifiable with this conclusion, and thus, the Plaintiff’s appeal and the court added it as preliminary.