beta
Text
1. The defendant's total amount of the plaintiff's corresponding statement of calculation of the winning amount by the plaintiff in attached Form 2 and its importance.
Reasons
Basic L was assessed on January 30, 1911, the Gyeonggi-gun M 140 square meters (hereinafter “instant land before the instant partition”).
Since then, the land before the division of this case was divided into seven streets (short-term 4286) of Gangdong-gu Seoul Ngu Seoul National Road (hereinafter “the land No. 1”) and 133 square meters (hereinafter “the land No. 2”) and the land category was changed at the same time.
According to the land cadastre made on August 4, 1976, each of the above lands was reported on December 10, 1974 as to each of the above lands, and each of the subdivision adjustment was completed and closed on July 7, 1982.
Each of the above lands was incorporated into Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on January 1, 1988.
The plaintiffs' prior P died on August 26, 1922, and Q, as a head of South Korea, succeeded to L's property as a family heir.
Since then, Q has died on February 27, 1954, and Q Q has succeeded to the property as well as the family inheritance.
R A. On December 30, 1994, R had A, son T, J, and K, and died on December 30, 1994. On April 27, 1994, S had already died and succeeded to the inheritance of S on behalf of the wife A, ASEAN B, C, and D on November 3, 1983, T inherited the inheritance of T on behalf of I, F, G, H, and I on November 3, 1983, T inherited the inheritance of T in lieu of T, and J, and K jointly inherited the R’s property according to their respective shares of inheritance.
[Grounds for recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Gap evidence Nos. 2-2, 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 5, and Gap evidence Nos. 7, and the fact-finding conducted by the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the court's fact-finding with respect to the head of Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, as a result of the fact-finding with respect to each land of this case where P, the plaintiffs' assertion of the whole purport of the pleadings and the summary of the judgment party's assertion, acquired the ownership of each land of this case as part of river area. Thus, the defendant is the successor of P to each