1. Of the 2,55 square meters and 757 square meters before J, the Plaintiff: (i) as to each of the 3/15 shares in the Defendant B, the part of the 3/15 shares.

1. Determination on both arguments

A. If the purport of the entire pleading is added to Gap 1-6's partial entries and Eul 1-6's witness's testimony, the registration of ownership transfer has been completed on December 23, 1964 with respect to each of the lands (hereinafter referred to as "land of this case" in its entirety for convenience) discharged under paragraph (1) of this Article, and the plaintiff indirectly occupied the land of this case through K, etc. from December 5, 1965 to December 5, 1965. Since L died on November 1, 1982, it can be acknowledged that the defendants jointly inherited the land of this case with the ratio of shares generated from the disposition No. 1 of this case. The possession of the plaintiff on the land of this case is presumed to be so-called "self-owned possession" (see Article 197 (1) of the Civil Act). Thus, the plaintiff's transfer registration of the land of this case is legally presumed to be the "self-owned possession" (see Article 197 (1) of the Civil Act).

B. As to this, the Defendants dispute to the purport that the so-called “the possession” or at least the presumption of self-ownership has already been broken out due to the nature of their source of authority from the time the possession of the Plaintiff on the instant land was commenced. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this point, and therefore, the Defendants’ assertion that the Plaintiff is liable for tax payment cannot be accepted.

2. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case seeking the performance of each of the above-mentioned obligations for ownership transfer registration is accepted.