2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

A. The deceased D (Death on September 10, 1989)’s children were removed from the deceased E (Death on June 5, 1982), the deceased F (Death on May 11, 1997), and the deceased D’s removed register on March 30, 1947.

Although the plaintiffs asserted that L had died on a dateless, they did not submit evidence of existence and child relationship.

There are several other children (the other children of the network D died without their own loss before the network D dies, and the spouse of the network D died before the network D’s death). Three of the children of the network F, the Defendants are the spouse (Defendant B) and children (Defendant C) of the network E, the male spouse of the network E.

B. The lower court determined that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ownership of each of the instant housing units and the lower court’s determination that the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ownership of each of the instant housing units, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the ownership of each of the instant housing units, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

At least from September 10, 1989, the deceased D, occupied and managed each of the instant houses, and Defendant B occupied and managed Defendant B, April 16, 2014, and Defendant C completed the move-in report to the address of each of the instant houses on June 8, 2015.

C. On September 29, 2018, the Defendants entered into a sales contract with K to sell each of the instant housing by setting the sales price as KRW 150,000,000, and received KRW 150,000 and delivered each of the instant housing to K, and thereafter all of the instant housing and related obstacles were removed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

A. Each of the instant housing was owned by the network D, and the deceased on September 10, 1989 succeeded to each of the instant housing by the deceased E’s successors (total of 6/11), the deceased F (Inheritance Shares 4/11), and G (Inheritance Shares 1/11).

According to the Inheritance Act at the time of September 10, 1989, the share of inheritance shall, in principle, be equally divided, but at the same time, the heir of the property succeeds to Australia.