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

A. According to the old land cadastre, real estate stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter “instant land”) is assessed on July 23, 191 by F with an address in Daegubu E.

B. On September 10, 1946, the Plaintiff’s fleet G (G, H, hereinafter “the deceased”) died on the part of the deceased on September 10, 194, and the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on December 12, 1959, the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of

On October 13, 2005, K died and succeeded jointly to the property of the Plaintiff, L, M, and N, which are his children.

C. At present, Defendant C leased and cultivated the instant land from Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 6 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (if there are various numbers, including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the parties’ assertion asserts that “F” (hereinafter “Public Injury F”) which is considered to have been assessed on the land in the former land cadastre and “W,” which is the same person as the Plaintiff’s assistance G, and on the premise that the Plaintiff himself/herself shares the land in common with L, M, and N, he/she seeks to transfer the land in this case against the Defendants.

The defendants asserted that the public accountF is not the same as the net G.

3. According to the statements in Gap evidence 2 and Gap evidence 15-1 to 8, it can be recognized that the deceased G's characters are written in Eul published on October 15, 201 (hereinafter "the instant supplementary report") as F.

In addition, the Plaintiff’s private villages testified to the effect that P is F by the deceased G in this court, and that this case’s land is located near, and that the parents of the deceased G gave up a grave that had been located.

However, the witness P's testimony, Eul evidence 2 and this Court's testimony to the head of the Daegu Metropolitan City.