(a) an indication of the reasons for the claim as shown in Appendix 3;

(However, "12/234" concerning the shares of Defendant BF, BG, and BH of 26 pages seems to be a clerical error in the "13/234". (b)

1) Defendant P and U: The fact that there is no dispute over the other Defendants: The remaining Defendants: Articles 208(3)3 and 150(3) (a) (b) of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C, J, School Foundation M, AF, AK, and B

A. In around 1969, the Plaintiff’s mother CE purchased part of the land before the instant partition from the Defendant Educational Foundation M by specifying its location and size, but the registration of ownership transfer was made as co-ownership shares on the registry.

Since then, the land purchased by the network CE through the division, division, rearrangement, etc. of the land before the division became each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet No. 1 (hereinafter “each of the instant land”).

The Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 29, 1986 with respect to each of the instant lands by reason of an inheritance by agreement and division as of November 19, 1976. Defendant C, J, school juristic persons, M, AF, AK, and BS are the buyer or transferee who purchased each of the instant lands by specifying the location and size of the land before the instant subdivision or the land before the instant subdivision.

The Plaintiff and the Defendants are in a mutual title trust relationship with respect to each of the instant land, and the Plaintiff’s service of a copy of the purport of the claim as of January 6, 2015 and the application form for change of cause of the claim, and the title trust relationship between the said Defendants is terminated. Therefore, the said Defendants are the Defendants’ shares in each of the instant land.