A. As to shares of 1/16 each out of 9,917§³ Jincheon-gun Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun:

(b) Assistants;

A. On December 6, 1984, L and net M (hereinafter “the deceased”) completed the registration of ownership preservation with respect to each of 1/2 shares of Jincheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun (hereinafter “No. 1”) and L completed the registration of ownership transfer for the Plaintiff on March 27, 2013 with respect to the entire shares of the Plaintiff on the ground of donation on April 25, 2013. The Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 17, 2013 with respect to each of the shares of the deceased (i.e., 1/16(=2) x 1/8) with respect to the deceased’s shares as the deceased’s heir on November 25, 2000.

B. On December 24, 1984, N (the representative of the Plaintiff),O, and the Deceased completed the registration of ownership transfer on each 1/3 portion of Kancheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, and Hongcheon-gun, with respect to each 64,661 square meters (hereinafter “second real estate of this case”). On April 2, 2013, N and L completed the registration of ownership transfer on the part of the Plaintiff for donations on March 27, 2013. The Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer on each portion of the deceased’s shares as the heir of the deceased on July 17, 2013 (i.e., 1/24=1/3 x 1/8) as a result of inheritance on November 25, 2000.

[Reasons for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 2 and 3, Purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The Defendants’ assertion 1) asserted that the Plaintiff did not have the substance of the Plaintiff’s clan, against the Defendants, seeking the implementation of the procedures for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the cancellation of title trust with respect to the Defendants’ shares among the real estate Nos. 1 and 2 of this case. The Defendants asserted that the lawsuit of this case is unlawful since the Plaintiff did not have the substance of a clan, the Plaintiff did not have any capacity to be a party. 2) The Plaintiff asserted that the lawsuit of this case was unlawful, because it did not have any substance of a clan, and that the resolution of the special meeting of the clan No. 31 of October 31, 2015 was invalid. The resolution of the general meeting of the clan No. 31 of October 31, 2015 (hereinafter “the general meeting of this case”).