A. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 31,329,200 and KRW 3,000 among them, the remainder shall be from January 8, 2014, and the remainder shall be 28,329.

A. On May 8, 1911, the land research division drafted during the Japanese occupation point period, stating that I, who had resided in Suwon-gun H, was under the assessment of the status of 628 Chowon-gun J on May 8, 191 (hereinafter “instant assessment land”).

B. On December 31, 1959, the assessment land of this case was changed to a river, and the land was 2,076 square meters in Jinsung-si through the conversion registration of the area and the change of administrative district, and registration of preservation of ownership was completed in the name of the Republic of Korea on December 27, 1996.

C. On November 16, 1947, I, the representative of the plaintiffs, who had his permanent domicile in Suwon-gun K, died, and M solely assumed the family head and inherited property. On December 8, 1980, M, his spouse, and the plaintiff A (the family head inheritance), B, D, E, and N, the representative heir of N, the spouse of the plaintiff C, C, D, E, and G, the representative heir of N, who died on July 12, 1968, was inherited according to the legal share of inheritance.

L, upon the death of August 27, 2001, the plaintiff F and G jointly inherited the property of the plaintiff F and N as the inheritor of the plaintiff A, B, C, D, D, and N.

The specific inheritance shares of the plaintiffs are as shown in the annexed share calculation sheet.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, evidence 4-1, 2, 5 through 14, evidence 15-1 through 5, 16, 17, 18-1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The details of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes are as shown in attached statutes;

3. Determination

A. 1) According to the above evidence, I, the name of the assessment of the assessment land of this case, and I, the plaintiffs, are the same person, and according to the above evidence, I, the name of the assessment land of this case, I, the address of I, the name of the assessment land of this case, and I, the legal domicile of I, the plaintiffs, (which can be recognized the same fact, and the names of both parties are the same as in the above, and there is no circumstance to suspect that I, the name of the plaintiffs, and the name of the two parties were the same. Thus, it cannot be seen that there is a suspicion that I, the name of the plaintiffs, and the name of the two parties were the same.