The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited the reasoning of the judgment, is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for cases where the reasoning of this case is used or added as set forth in the following paragraph (2). Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article

2. The “Evidence Nos. 8 and 15 of A” shall be added to the evidence of 3 pages 13 of the judgment of the court of first instance that has been written or added.

See the text of the judgment of the court of first instance, the 13th lower grade and the 2nd grade of the judgment (refer to the attached household) are as follows: “AY is only a vehicle (refer to the attached household, but the attached household is also the third “AY” from the lower right side to the lower right side of the court).”

The following shall be added between pages 13, 13, 2, and 1:

In relation to L and N, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s property was formed by the Defendant’s contribution of L and N (as of August 13, 2020, the Defendant appears to have asserted that L and N’s children and the Plaintiffs were different grounds in light of the context before and after the preparation of the briefs 9 pages, etc.

In addition, L/N was the joint names of the instant forest land with U, and the Defendant’s property was formed by the proceeds from the sale of the instant forest land. However, the instant forest land was used as land, mountain, and mountain, for which Q was originally located, and due to which Q Q’s registration of preservation of ownership was made under the joint names of L, N, and U located in the house, and L/N did not form the instant forest land by personal contributions. It seems that L/N did not form the instant forest land by way of personal contributions. The remaining U.S., the joint names, which was the joint names, excluded U/N from the establishment of the Defendant, is acceptable, but it cannot be viewed as reasonable grounds for discrimination against L/N’s children and the Plaintiffs.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiffs are clearly expected to attempt to operate the defendant's property at will.