1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. The court's explanation concerning this case is 2-C of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

Paragraph (1) and 2-D.

The part of the “sub-committee theory” in the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act shall be amended as follows, and it shall be accepted as it is in accordance with the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the addition of the list of the details of the merger by split after split the following nine pages.

2. Parts to be dried;

C. Limit of liability, however, in light of the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence mentioned above and the purport of the entire pleadings, the liability of the Defendant is limited to 60% of the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs.

(1) The deceased Q, the decedent of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs, (Death on September 9, 2007) delayed measures such as ascertaining ownership and inheritance of the land before the instant partition. Accordingly, the acquisition by prescription of the O registry on the land No. 2 of this case led to the completion of the acquisition by prescription of the O registry.

Although the cadastral record of the land before the division of this case

6. It appears that it was destroyed during the war on August 25, 200, but on the other hand, net Q did not take measures to secure the right for a long period of time, even though it acquired ownership by inheritance of the land before the instant subdivision due to the death of H, a name of the circumstances, August 28, 1932.

The Defendant’s completion of registration of preservation of ownership on each of the instant lands appears to be attributable to negligence in handling the affairs without properly verifying the precedents, etc. regarding the status of the person who was registered as the owner in the Land Investigation Book.

However, there is no circumstance to deem that the public official in charge intentionally completed the registration of initial ownership on the land of this case No. 2 or sold it to theO, which would inflict losses on the plaintiffs or their decedents.

Consolidatedly, the Defendant sold the land No. 2 in around 1992, and the market price of the land was considerably increased after the lapse of a long period thereafter.

Accordingly, the defendant is therefore the defendant.