1. As to the Plaintiff’s respective shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet, Defendant B, May 30, 2016, and Defendant I, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. N,O, P, and Q completed registration of initial ownership relating to each of 1/4 shares of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “instant real estate”) on April 30, 1971.

(B) At the time of registration of preservation of ownership, the registration of ownership was “one thousand six single-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-six-one-one forest land in the Gyeonggi-do,” but was later changed to the instant real estate

The O died on March 3, 1979, and on January 27, 2011, S, Defendant B, and C, the O’s heir, completed the registration of ownership transfer based on the inheritance due to the consultation and division on March 3, 1979.

C. Q died on February 28, 1981, and Q’s heir completed the registration of ownership transfer for each of the pertinent shares listed in the separate sheet among the instant real estate, as to Defendant D, E, F, G, H, H, I, J, K, K, L, and M, due to the consultation and division on February 28, 1981.

U, V, W, Defendant B, and I (hereinafter referred to as “U, etc.”) who is the descendants of T (O and Q) opened a clan conference on August 15, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “C”) to designate U as “A” the name of the clan consisting of T’s descendants, appointed U as the chairperson of the Plaintiff, and enacted its articles of incorporation regarding the clan activities, such as the management of the clan property.

E. The Defendants are descendants of T.T.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3-1, Gap evidence 5-1-3, Gap evidence 7-1-3, Gap evidence 1-1-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to claims against Defendant B, I, J, K, L, and M

(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C, D, E, F, G, and H (hereinafter “Defendant C”)

A. The judgment of Defendant C, etc. on the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff had no capacity to do so on the previous defense on the merit of the instant case does not constitute an example with T as a joint vessel.