1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows. Paragraph 2 provides for a judgment on the assertion that the defendant AP organization newly emphasizes in this court; and except for the addition of Paragraph 3 to the judgment on the argument that the plaintiff emphasizes in this court, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment; thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article

At the end of 7th nine pages, “In addition, AJ has taken over the status of CG, CH, CI, CJ, CK, K, CL, and CM, which are successors due to the death during the course of the instant lawsuit.”

Defendant I shall grow "Defendant I" into "I" at the bottom of 7 pages.

8. The 6th parallel “Defendant BH” is regarded as “BH species”.

8. The 8th page “Defendant BN” in the 17th page “BN” shall be changed to “BN”.

In 8th 22, Defendant B Q was improved into “B Q”.

9 pages 11 "CC" shall be raised as "O".

9. The 12th parallel “Y” shall be turned into “Y,” and “Z.”

9 pages 13 "(Defendant P, Z)" shall be changed to "(Defendant P, P, and Z)".

9 pages 14 "The decedents" shall be changed to "the decedent BG".

At the bottom of the nine pages, the “AJ” is regarded as “CG, CH, CI, CJ, CK, CL, and CM, which is the litigation of the network AJ.”

The term "AO" at the bottom of the nine pages shall be changed to "AO andN".

2. The defendant AP organization's judgment on the main safety defense of the defendant AP organization has received a final and conclusive judgment against the plaintiff who filed a lawsuit against the registered titleholder for cancellation of the ownership transfer registration regarding the land of this case in the preceding civil procedure. The plaintiff's title trust or autonomous possession claim in the lawsuit of this case is merely an attack and defense method supporting the invalidity of the grounds for registration, and all of them were generated before the closing of argument in the previous lawsuit, and thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful as it goes against the res judicata effect of

In principle, res judicata has only become effective between the parties and does not extend to a third party (Article 218(1) of the Civil Procedure Act). The parties to the previous suit are both the Plaintiff and the BS, BW, X, and B.