1. 7/35 shares of 7/35 m270 m270 m270 m2 in Jinju-si, Selection C, 7/35 shares of Selection D, 7/35 shares of Selection E, 7.7.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The land cadastre of 83 square meters in Jinyang-gun, Jinyang-gun I (hereinafter “former land cadastre”) is written as J, and thereafter K and L acquire ownership in succession.

B. Around February 4, 1978, the said land was substituted with B 270 square meters in Jinju-si, Jinju-si (hereinafter “instant land”).

C. The owner on the instant land ledger is indicated as L (location: M, registration number: N), and the instant land is currently unregistered. D.

On June 8, 1999, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party, hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”) and the Appointor’s office died on June 8, 199 (hereinafter referred to as the “the deceased”). The deceased’s wife succeeded to the deceased’s property by the Appointor C, D, E, Plaintiff, and network P, and succeeded to the deceased’s property by the deceased’s death. The deceased’s F, G, and H succeeded to the deceased’s property P.

The specific shares of inheritance between the plaintiff and the designated parties are as listed in the following table:

C 7/35 2 Selections. 4 Plaintiff 7/35 Plaintiff 7/35 Plaintiff 4 Plaintiff 7/35 Plaintiff 7/35 6 of G2/35 Plaintiff 2/35 7 of G 2/35 Plaintiff 1’s equity shares, without dispute over the aggregate of 1/35 of 1/35 of the 2/35 Selections. Each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including the serial number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In full view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the purport of the entire argument as seen earlier, namely, (a) the owner of the instant land recognized as having his domicile in M; (b) L and the deceased’s identity indicated as the owner on the old land cadastre; (c) the deceased’s permanent domicile is Qu at Jinju; (d) the owner on the land cadastre of this case entered the deceased’s resident registration number in Jinju; and (e) no special circumstance revealed to deem that the deceased and the deceased were residing in M at Jinju, it is reasonable to deem that L having his domicile in the land cadastre M is the same as the deceased and the same person.

If so, the plaintiff and the designated parties are recognized.

In accordance with the share stated in subsection (1), this case was the deceased’s property.