(a)an action against Defendant D, F, and G;

(b) is set out in the separate sheet against Defendant B, C, E, H, I, J, and K.

A. The facts of the instant lawsuit brought on March 11, 2016, Defendant D’s August 8, 2012, and Defendant G’s death on June 28, 2003 are obvious in records.

Therefore, Defendant D and G’s lawsuit is unlawful as it is against the deceased person at the time of the instant lawsuit.

B. Defendant F does not appear at all on the evidence, including the evidence No. 4-1, No. 4-2, and the service for it is not at all, and he seems to have been no person, not the actual person.

Therefore, a lawsuit against Defendant F is unlawful as it was filed against the deceased.

2. In determining the legitimacy of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet against Defendant B, C, E, H, I, J, and K, the part demanding the transfer of ownership to the Defendant B, the Plaintiff, and L joint names (Paragraph 1) and the part demanding the removal of ground objects (Paragraph 4 of the claim), the purport of the claim in a civil lawsuit should be clearly specified so that the content and scope of the claim can be clearly identified.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da7090 Decided September 8, 2011, etc.). However, in the case of paragraph (1) of the claim, the content and scope of the purport of the claim cannot be deemed to have been clearly specified in light of the following: (a) whether only the claim against the Defendant B was made; and (b) whether the claim against the other Defendants was made; and (c) whether the claim was made only against the Defendant B, even if the claim was not made,

In addition, in the case of paragraph 4 of the claim, what is the ground object to be removed by the plaintiff is not specified.

Therefore, Article 1(1) and (4) of the instant lawsuit is unlawful because the purport of the claim is not clearly specified.

(The plaintiff did not make any particular amendment to the order of this Court until now). 3. Defendant B, C, E, H, I, J, and K.