1. The Defendants are co-ownership shares listed in the separate sheet on the No. 4 Forest land in the military city M&M.

1. The description of the claim is as indicated in the annexed sheet of claim(s) and “the cause of the modified claim(s).”

2. Applicable provisions;

(a) Defendant E, F, G, H, I, J, or L: Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act (self-conception judgment);

(b) Defendant C or K: Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act (Decision by service by public notice)

C. Defendant B, D: Defendant B, and D submitted only a formal reply seeking dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim, which is not written at all, a substantial reason for disputing the Plaintiff’s claim.

Accordingly, on July 24, 2015, the full bench issued an order to prepare for name to the said Defendants, and urged other Defendants, who are the successors of the same network N, to assert and prove their arguments and evidences until August 5, 2015 regarding the substantive reasons for disputing the Plaintiff’s claims with other Defendants, who are the successors of the same network N, and issued a warning to dismiss their arguments and evidences after the due date attack and defense if the refusal to comply with such demands.

However, the above Defendants were served with the above order for the preparation of the statement, but did not answer any time within the above time period, and did not attend the date of pleading more than twice without permission.

If so, even after the above defendants' assertion and proof disputing the plaintiff's claim, it is obvious that it would be dismissed by the means of real-time attack and defense, and considering the circumstances where the plaintiff's assertion and defense was clearly set and provided an opportunity to do so, and the plaintiff did not make any reply and did not appear to be maintained at the appellate court's first instance decision.

Therefore, without stating the substantial reasons, the reasons for the judgment shall be prepared according to the precedent of confession.