2. Defendant Republic of Korea shall:

A. The plaintiff is a clan comprised of 29 years old descendants of HJJ C. 29 years old.

B. On July 17, 1931, the network K, the permanent domicile of which is established in the Gyeongnam-gunJ, Gyeongnam-gun, the property was solely inherited by the deceased L, the family head of which is inherited.

The net L died on November 15, 1975, and the property was jointly inherited by the net N, who succeeded to the family head of the deceased and the deceased.

On January 12, 1983, the network M and N have died at the same time, and the Defendants inherited or inherited the property by representation.

The Defendants’ shares in the inheritance of the net K’s inherited property are 3/14, 3/14, 4, 4, 4, 5, 5, 2/14, 2/14, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 3, 6 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. Defendant B, C, D, E, F, and G’s defenses, C, D, E, F, and G (hereinafter “Defendant B, etc.”) asserted that the Plaintiff filed the same lawsuit against the Defendants and obtained a final and conclusive judgment, and thus, the instant lawsuit repeats the same lawsuit.

According to Gap evidence 8, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant Eul, etc. for ownership transfer registration against the defendant Eul, etc. and won the judgment. The judgment's order can be recognized as the same facts as the purport of the claim against the defendant Eul, etc. of this case, and there is no dispute that the judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Where a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party to whom a final and conclusive judgment in favor of a party has become final and conclusive files a lawsuit again against the other party to the lawsuit identical to the previous suit in which a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the party to the lawsuit, barring any special circumstance,

(see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da23066, Nov. 14, 2017). There is no assertion or proof as to the special circumstance in which the Plaintiff institutes a lawsuit against the Defendant B, etc. against the Defendant B, etc., and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant B, etc. is unlawful as there is no benefit of protecting rights

(b) the defendant.