1. Defendant B, C, D, E, F, G, and H constitute the said Defendants among the respective real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 list, and the said Defendants listed in the separate sheet No. 2.

The plaintiff's argument by the parties was that the plaintiff's clan held title trust with 1/4 shares of the defendants' ancestor deceased AG (Defendant 1 through 7), AH (Defendant 8 through 12), AI (Defendant 13 through 19), and AJ (Defendant 20 through 31) as stated in the attached Table 1 list owned by them (hereinafter "the forest of this case"). However, the plaintiff's assertion by the parties had a duty to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of termination of the title trust with respect to each share of the forest of this case by the delivery of the complaint of this case. Thus, the defendants, the heir of the above title trustee, are obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of termination

The defendant J denies the fact of title trust.

Defendant 8, 10, and 31 asserts the safety defense of this case, ① the denial of the substance of the organization corresponding to the name of the Plaintiff clan, ② the lack of the representative authority of the Plaintiff clan, ③ the notice of convening a general assembly resolution and the absence of a resolution itself for litigation.

On the merits, the fact of title trust is denied.

As to the substance of the plaintiff clan, the clan is a naturally created clan organization formed by descendants of the common ancestor for the purpose of protecting the graves of the deceased clan and promoting friendship among their descendants, and is established by its descendants at the same time as the death of the deceased clan, and there is no limit to the number of its descendants. In addition, even though the use of the name of a clan is contrary to the custom of the use of the name, its substance cannot be denied just because it is against the custom of the use of the name.

(Supreme Court Decision 91Da42081 delivered on July 24, 1992). In full view of the evidence No. 7, evidence No. 17, testimony of witnesses AK, and the overall purport of the arguments, the plaintiff clans can recognize the fact that the plaintiff clans are naturally formed by the descendants of the 29 years-old AMFN set up in the Gosung-gun ALri group, under the joint title of the plaintiff clans.

Defendant 8, 10 to 31 argues to the effect that the Plaintiff’s clan uses the name “A” without legitimate resolution.