The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

As to this case, our court's explanation is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, after deducting the following contents from adding them as stated in paragraph (2).

Additional Parts

A. The defendants asserts that even if the plaintiff clan does not have any substance and has family substance, the time of formation is after the registration of ownership preservation in this case.

However, according to the evidence Nos. 12-1, 2, and 13-1, 2, 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25 of Gap evidence Nos. 12-1, 13-2, and Gap evidence Nos. 19, 20, 22, 23, and 25, and the testimony of the first instance court witness L, and V, the plaintiff clan prepared expenses in 1979 and constructed the tombstone. The plaintiff clan was not only produced a sarb in around 1980, but also conducted activities such as being issued a cadastral map of the land before the division of this case, and even around 1963, it can be recognized that the plaintiff's land of Gangwon-gun C, which is the ownership of the land of this case, was trusted in co-ownership of Y, Y, and Z, and that it was also trusted in trust with the ownership of the plaintiff AB, AC, Y, and Z around 1968.

In full view of these facts, the plaintiff clan at least can be seen as having an organic substance as a clan from before 1983, the registration of preservation of ownership of this case was completed. Accordingly, the defendants' assertion on a different premise is without merit.

B. In full view of the statements in the evidence Nos. 10 and 11 and the testimony of the witness V of the first instance trial, the deceased K may recognize facts that it was closely related to the plaintiff's clan, such as handling the affairs of the plaintiff's clan, even though it is not a member of the plaintiff's clan. [The signature of "K" on January 10, 1992, as a result of the appraiser AD's appraisal, stated in the resolution of the clan (No. 11) dated January 10, 1992, can be recognized that it is not the part of the deceased K's own, but the fact that the deceased K's name, which is not a member of the clan, shows the close relation between the plaintiff's clans], and the statement in the evidence No. 18.