(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment made by the confession of applicable provisions of Acts (Article 208 (3) 2 and Article 150 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. The Plaintiff’s judgment as to the claim against the Defendant (Appointed Party) B, Defendant L, and M asserts that, from May 1, 1983 to May 1, 1983, the Plaintiff’s net Q Q, the Plaintiff’s owner, occupied the Plaintiff’s share in inheritance on the ground of the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession on January 1, 201, for the following reasons: (a) from January 1, 1991, the deceased died, the Plaintiff occupied the instant land; and (b) accordingly, the Plaintiff was obligated to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the statute of limitations for the acquisition of possession on each of the above land.

In full view of the records as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the fact-finding results as to this court's reinforcement and amnesty, it is recognized that on Feb. 22, 1949, the deceased on Sep. 25, 1953, the deceased on Sep. 25, 1953, and the deceased on Sep. 2, 1953, as part of the deceased's heir, part of the land of this case is inherited.

However, as to the fact that the net Q, the plaintiff or the plaintiff's attached, occupied the land in this case, it is difficult to believe that the entries in Gap evidence 7-1, 2, 8-1, 2-2, and 6 and the testimony in T, which seem consistent with them, and the statements in Gap evidence 3, 4-1, 2, 5, and 6 are insufficient to recognize them, and there is no other evidence to prove them otherwise.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B, Defendant L, and M is without merit without further determination.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claims against Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K are accepted, respectively, and the plaintiff's claims against the defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, J, and K.