1. Ascertainment that the Plaintiff is a person presiding over the deceased H’s proposal.

2. The forest land of 9,445 square meters in Asan-si is a gold-raising forest;

Basic Facts

The network H of the party status as a party (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) had L, M, and N, which is a child between the network J, and had Defendant D, Defendant E, Defendant F, and Defendant G, who are his father, married with the network B on October 10, 1957.

The Deceased died on April 22, 2004, and on December 27, 2003, the deceased’s head of the deceased died on the part of the deceased. The Plaintiff is the deceased’s head of the Dong K.

The deceased B died on September 5, 2015, while the lawsuit of this case was pending, and the Defendants are the deceased B’s children.

The deceased, such as the property relationship of the deceased, owned each real estate listed in the separate sheet at the time of the death. Among them, the deceased’s inheritors completed the inheritance registration as to each real estate listed in the No. 11, and the remaining real estate including the real estate listed in the Disposition No. 2, including the real estate (No. 21; hereinafter “instant real estate”) shall remain in the name of the deceased as of the date of the closing of argument in the instant case.

Around March 2004, the Deceased reported the installation of a family charnel facility with a size of 30 square meters and 70 square meters on the ground of the instant real estate to the competent authority. On July 12, 2004, the deceased was accepted on July 12, 2004, which was after the death of the deceased.

[Grounds for recognition] In the absence of dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-3-7, Gap evidence 5-1-5-2, Gap evidence 12-1-2, Gap evidence 19-1 and 2-2-3, and the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's assertion of the purport of the whole pleading, the defendant's assertion of the purport of the whole pleading, and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the argument, and the deceased's death on December 27, 2003, and the deceased's death on April 22, 2004, the plaintiff, the deceased's head of the deceased, had been presiding over the deceased's master's office P, the deceased's department P, the deceased's and the father's office's doctor according to custom since that time.

The deceased’s position in the title 3, 4 real estate (hereinafter “ Q land”) and No. 11 real estate (hereinafter “R land”) among the real estate listed in the attached list is not good for spathic balance.