1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 39,372,554 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 3,281,046 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from January 8, 2014 to November 2014 to each of them.

1. Basic facts

A. The Land Survey Division (Evidence No. 6-8 and Evidence No. 7-8) written during the Japanese Occupation Period is registered as the fact of the Haju-gun E (the name was changed to F in 1914) with respect to the “Yju-gun C previously 800 square meters” and “Yju-gun D previously 666 square meters” of Gyeonggi-gun E (the name was changed to F).

B. Each land subject to the foregoing circumstances was changed after the change of land category, conversion of the area, and the name of the administrative district, and the 800 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-gun, which became the 2,645 square meters of the C river in Innju-gun, and the 666 square meters prior to the Gyeonggi-gun, which became the 2,202 square meters of the I river in Sju-si.

The above two lands are "each land of this case" in total, including land category change, area conversion, and name before and after administrative district name, and "land of this case" is "land of this case" in order when each land is referred to.

A person shall be appointed.

C. Each of the instant lands is incorporated into the river section of the Han River, which is a national river, under the Han River Ledger (Construction Division of December 197) and the Han River basin Water Control Project Ledger (Ministry of Construction and Transportation of 1992).

1) On July 6, 1951, H had a permanent domicile in the female-gunJ, and died after H left the said wife K and ASEAN, on December 3, 1980, K succeeded to Australia’s family and property, died on December 11, 1991, one of the heirs of K died on December 11, 1991, and the Plaintiffs were L’ children. 2) On February 27, 2010, the Plaintiff agreed on the division of inherited property between the heir and the other heir other than the Plaintiff, whose respective inheritance shares of each of the instant inheritors were transferred to the Plaintiff.

(No. 4). On December 8, 2011, Plaintiff A consulted on the division of inherited property between Plaintiff B and Plaintiff B with the content that Plaintiff A would succeed to 48/52 and Plaintiff B’s 4/52 among their respective inheritance shares in each of the instant lands.

(A) [Evidence 5] / [Evidence 5] / without dispute, each of Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 3-5, and Gap evidence 6-8 (including each number).