1. The Defendant’s District Court shall have jurisdiction over the shares of 1/14 of each real estate listed in the separate sheet to the Plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. G on May 9, 1984, donated its entire property to H, an incorporated association, including each land listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant land”).

When the instant land was farmland and thus cannot be registered for ownership transfer pursuant to the former Farmland Reform Act, H, an incorporated association, title trust, which was the vice-chairperson of the said corporation at the time, was held against I.

Accordingly, I completed the registration of ownership transfer on July 9, 1985 with respect to the land of this case on June 18, 1985.

B. G died on December 9, 2010, and his/her heir has five Plaintiffs, who are lineal descendants, J, and K.

On July 1, 2011, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit claiming the return of legal reserve of inheritance against I, incorporated association H, Defendant, etc., and received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of some of the Plaintiffs (Supreme Court Decision 2011Gahap7519 Decided July 26, 2012, Seoul High Court Decision 2012Na69427 Decided June 12, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da21512 Decided July 29, 2016).

According to this decision, the Plaintiffs completed each registration of ownership transfer on July 8, 2011, based on their respective shares of 1/14 out of the instant land on September 201.

C. Meanwhile, as seen above, I was subject to the lawsuit claiming the return of forced inheritance from the Plaintiffs, and on November 25, 201, completed the registration of the establishment of the neighboring mortgage on the instant land (hereinafter “registration of establishment of the neighboring land”) in the future of the Defendant, who was represented by himself.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-5, the purport of whole pleadings

2. In light of the following: I and the defendant's relation, the defendant's relation, and the reasons for the judgment in the previous lawsuit claiming the return of legal reserve of inheritance, etc., it is determined that the defendant knew that the land of this case was in violation of the plaintiffs' legal reserve of inheritance due to the creation of the above legal reserve of inheritance with the land to be returned to the right holder at the time of the registration of the establishment of the right to the

Therefore, the defendant.