1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the Plaintiff regarding Defendant B, C, D, H, I, J, L, M, N, P, Q, R, M, T, T, and V shall be revoked.

2.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 20, 1912, the land cadastre of the instant land, which is unregistered, indicated that “Y” located in K, was the assessment of the instant land.

B. The remaining defendants except the defendant Republic of Korea are those of the predecessor of the Z, and the details of each inheritance share are as shown in the annexed sheet.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of the fact-finding conducted by the court of first instance on the AD head of the AD Dong of the court of first instance, the purport of the entire pleadings (with respect to the defendant's Republic of Korea, E, F, G, K, and U), the admission as a confession (Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and other defendants except

2. Determination as to claims against the remaining Defendants except Defendant Republic of Korea

A. “Y in AK” and Z, the decedent of the Defendants, indicated as the assessment of the instant land in the Plaintiff’s claim on the land cadastre of this case, are the same persons.

The Plaintiff’s early February 16, 1975, acquired the instant land by payment in lieu of the Plaintiff’s land from AB, the Z, around 1954. AC, the Plaintiff’s father, around November 23, 1958, donated the instant land to the Plaintiff on or around February 16, 1975.

As above, from February 16, 1975, the Plaintiff: (a) occupied the instant land in peace and public performance with the intent to own it from February 16, 1975 to the present date; and (b) the prescriptive acquisition was completed on February 16, 1995; (c) the remaining Defendants except the Defendant Republic of Korea, the heir of Z, who was the heir of the Z upon the assessment of the instant land, are obliged to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the completion of the prescriptive acquisition on February 16, 1995 with respect to

B. As to the claim against Defendant B, C, D, H, I, J, L, M, N,O, P, Q, S, T, and V (hereinafter “Defendant B and 15 others”), the judgment of Defendant B and 15 others do not clearly dispute the Plaintiff’s above assertion, thereby under Article 150(3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act.