A. It is limited to 40/220 of each of the real estates listed in the separate sheet among the lawsuits against Defendant B, C, and D.

In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap's oral proceedings, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendants and the non-party Eul, who is the mother of the defendant Eul, Eul and Eul, and the non-party Eul who is the non-party Eul's mother, for the same cause as the cause of the claim in this case. At the time of the filing of the lawsuit, G was alive at the time of the lawsuit, but he was aware of the fact that he had died during the lawsuit and the fact that H had already re-reind before the death of F, as to the shares in this case, about the shares in 15/5, about the shares in the land in this case, about the shares in 10/5 for the defendant Eul, Eul, and D, about the shares in 6/5 for H, about the shares in 5/5 for the defendant Eul, and about the shares in 4/5 for the defendant Eul, the above court rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiff on May 27, 2015, and the facts that the judgment became final and conclusive on July 8, 2015

According to the above facts, among the lawsuits against Defendant B, C, and D, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for ownership transfer registration concerning shares of 10/5 (40/220) out of the land in this case, and the part of the claim for ownership transfer registration concerning shares of 4/5 (16/20) out of the land in this case against Defendant E is against the res judicata effect of the final and conclusive judgment.