1. As to the portion of 1/3 of each of the real estate listed in the “List of Real Estate” attached Form 2 to the Plaintiff, Defendant B, C, and D, on January 2014.

1. Part concerning the first real estate;

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was on August 15, 1994, the Plaintiff purchased each real estate indicated in [Attachment 2] List of Real Estate (hereinafter collectively referred to as “real estate 1”) from the deceased W, and thereafter occupied and used the real estate 1 as its owner intention from that time.

Therefore, on August 15, 2014, the prescription period for the acquisition of possession on the first real property has expired.

As such, Defendant B, C, and D (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendant B, etc.”) who is the deceased W’s heir is obligated to implement the registration procedure for transfer of ownership on August 15, 2014 with respect to each 1/3 of the above Defendants’ inheritance shares in the real estate No. 1 to the Plaintiff.

B. 1) The deceased W completed the registration of ownership preservation on the real estate No. 1 on June 30, 1965 under its own name. 2) The deceased on August 15, 1994 (the wife X seems to have died on the front day of the above date and around 1968). The heir is the defendant B, etc.

3) On December 20, 2007, the Plaintiff received a guarantee from two other persons, including the Z that “the Plaintiff purchases real estate 1 from Defendant D, the Plaintiff’s son, on August 15, 1994, and actually owns it until now.” (iv) around June 27, 2008, the Plaintiff paid the registration tax, local education tax, etc. as to the 1st real estate to the Macheon-gun.

5) The witness AA testified in this Court as follows: “The accurate year is not memory, but the witness shall be entitled to “each real estate listed in [Attachment 1] and [Attachment 3] List of Real Estate from the 1990s to the 1990s.”

Some of them have been cultivated.

The Plaintiff told Defendant D, a witness of the network W, that the Plaintiff purchased all real estate from Defendant E, a son of the network AB, and from Defendant E, a son of the network AB.

‘' is the same.

In addition, this Court is against the head of the Maok-gun in this Court.